Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

Water Pollution

Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many water pollution incidents were the subject of prosecutions in each of the last three years; and what was the total amount levied in fines in each year.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Bennett): With permission, Mr. Speaker. I shall circulate the full information in the Official Report. The number of successful prosecutions in the National Rivers Authority's Welsh region was 65 in the year to 31 August 1990, 85 in the year to 31 August 1991 and 20 in the three months from 31 August 1991 to 30 November 1991.

Mr. Griffiths: Is the Minister aware of what the National Rivers Authority calls the mysteriously high levels of copper, zinc and lead pollution in the lower Ogmore estuary in my constituency? In two successive years, the Government imposed budget cuts on the NRA yet Welsh Water was fined only just over £18,000 for 17 pollution incidents, although it is making profits that average £120 million a year. Does not the Minister believe that it is about time that the Government took stiff action,

so that the potential to fight pollution is not wasted as it is at the moment, due to the Government's lackadaisical attitude?

Mr. Bennett: Apart from the fact that the hon. Gentleman's figures are wrong, the NRA's budget is £431 million. The NRA was established by the Government to tackle water pollution—something that the last Labour Government did not do. We have increased the amount of money being spent on purifying water and the results are clear. Welsh water is cleaner than English water and is some of the best in Europe. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is for ever denigrating the water of Wales.

Sir Anthony Meyer: As I had severe doubts about the privatisation of water, can my hon. Friend tell me whether investment in water in Wales has increased or decreased since privatisation?

Mr. Bennett: My hon. Friend will know from the figures that, under the last Labour Government, investment in the water industry was severely cut by the Treasury. Since the industry was privatised under the Government, Welsh Water alone is investing £500,000 a day, or £1·8 billion over the next 10 years, to improve our water.

Mr. Wigley: Does the Minister acknowledge the enormous increase in water charges in Wales since privatisation? Given that the increase is hitting hard the water rate payers in Wales, should not all the money that is raised by Welsh Water be used to increase water standards, instead of being spread around as profits among private individuals, who are benefiting from a monopoly?

Mr. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman asked me that question before, and he still does not appear to understand the answer. All the money, and more, raised from charges to Welsh water consumers is used for investment. For every £100 raised by charges, £108 is spent on investment. The shareholders of Welsh Water—a separate company —get dividends from the investments that Welsh Water makes in other interests. Nothing is done with Welsh


Water charge payers' money other than to invest it in water. The hon. Gentleman ought to understand that point.

Following is the information:



Prosecutions
Fines £
Costs £


1 September 1989 to 31 August 1990
65
58,255
40,926·81


1 September 1990 to 31 August 1991
85
306,400
77,582·23


1 September 1991 to 30 November 1991
20
11,300
6,007·23

A small number of prosecutions have been unsuccessful. Costs for the period 1 September 1991 to 30 November 1991 may be subject to amendment.

Further information is contained in the NRA's report "Water Pollution Incidents in England and Wales 1990", which was published last month.

NHS Trusts

Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the consideration he gives expressions of public opinion in assessing whether an application for NHS hospital trust status should beapproved.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hunt): I take full account of all relevant representations.

Mr. Williams: Does the Minister accept that every opinion poll on the subject shows that the overwhelming majority of the public oppose NHS trusts and see them as a stepping stone to privatisation? If the Government—who privatised the gas, electricity and water industries—are returned at the next general election, they will privatise the NHS. Why do not the Government abandon that creeping privatisation and listen to the public, who want the NHS to be modernised, not privatised?

Mr. Hunt: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is, for instance, referring to the Wales Trades Union Congress opinion poll, but I shall quote from one of the instructions to those who conducted it:
Street ballots are to be held as a means of offering the public the opportunity to show their opposition to optingout.
I hardly think that that was a fair poll.
In 1979, Labour said that the Conservative Government would privatise the health service. Nothing has been further from the truth, and the position is still the same. We have no plans to privatise the health service. The latest opinion poll on the health service in Wales showed that nine out of 10 of the people who received hospital treatment in the past two years were very or fairly satisfied with it. Approval of the Government's conduct of the health service is at record levels.

Mr. Grist: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the success that national health service trusts in England are enjoying should reassure anybody in Wales about any application that might come before him?

Mr. Hunt: I agree with my hon. Friend. Approval has been widespread and distinct improvements have been made. I remind the House of the figures and statistics. When we took office in 1979, an average of £170 per man, woman and child was spent on the health service in Wales. My recent announcement took the figure to £651. There is no question of underfunding—rather, there has been a generous allocation of resources.

Mr. Livsey: Parents are allowed a vote when schools opt for grant-maintained status, yet no such vote is allowed when an NHS hospital applies to become a trust. Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that that is very unfair?

Mr. Hunt: The two examples are not comparable. There is no question of any national health service trust leaving the NHS. Parents have a vote on the governorship of schools, but health service trusts must show the Secretary of State for Wales that the quality of service will improve and that they will remain within the national health service.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: I put it to my right hon. Friend that trust status is the finest form of devolution within the national health service, taking decision making down to the most local level. By increasing NHS spending by approximately 60 per cent. in real terms, the Government are showing the finest and best commitment to the NHS in Wales.

Mr. Hunt: I agree with my hon. Friend. National health service trusts mean local management of locally based health services to meet local need. The previous Labour Government took all their time in office to reach a 9 per cent. increase in real terms. Under this Government, NHS resources have increased in real terms by more than 60 per cent.

Mr. Barry Jones: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that opt-out hospitals and the Tory commercialised internal market in patients are yet further examples of the Conservatives imposing policies from Whitehall that ignore the special needs and culture of Wales and have no support among our people? There is no support in Wales for those proposals, but there is anger that the Secretary of State will tamper with the national health service in the way that he proposes. When the election is held, his party will pay a heavy price.

Mr. Hunt: We have had expressions of interest from parts of the national health service that would mean that trusts would be responsible for more than 65 per cent. of all acute services in Wales. The hon. Gentleman was a Welsh Office Minister in the previous Labour Government, when resources for the national health service increased by 9 per cent. Under this Government, resources have increased by more than 60 per cent. in real terms.

Glyntaff Farm Estate

Dr. Kim Howells: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met representatives of Taff Ely borough council to discuss the future of the Glyntaff Farm estate.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Neither I nor my right hon. Friend has done so, but our officials are regularly in touch with the local authority.

Dr. Howells: By any index, the Glyntaff Farm estate is one of the most deprived and run down in Wales, and there are many like it in the Principality. Its young population, including many young children, live in houses which are falling apart and which it is estimated will cost £22 million to repair. When will the Minister do something about the administrative constipation that prevents the Welsh Office from acting, and ensure that my constituents have a better life than they have had until now?

Mr. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman will know, because he has been in correspondence with my right hon. Friend, that we are anxious to facilitate the transfer of properties to the new tenants housing association as soon as possible, but, clearly, there are matters of finance which have to be sorted out. I can assure him that I share his concerns. I want to see it happen and we shall continue to maintain close contact with the local authority to ensure that it does.

Mr. Murphy: With many estates in Wales such as Glyntaff in need of serious attention, with nearly 80,000 people on council house waiting lists in Wales, with mortgage repossessions at a record high and with nearly 20,000 homeless people in the Principality, does the Minister still insist that there is no Welsh housing crisis?

Mr. Bennett: It is interesting to consider the reality of the situation, as opposed to what the hon. Gentleman says. Under Housing for Wales, we are this year giving £170 million towards the construction of new houses. The hon. Gentleman talks about waiting lists, but he should consider an article in the Daily Post on 7 February this year which states that Anglesey—Ynys Mon borough council said that it has been able to slash the waiting list from 1,522 people to only 147 by considering what people want, the number of people on the list and whether they have a valid demand. That is the reality.
I am pleased to be able to announce today that I am making available a further £1 million to five local authorities to help them to tackle homelessness pressures in their areas. A lot has been done by this Government —we do not merely sit and talk as the Opposition do. Action is what counts and that is what we are providing for Wales.

Primary Education

Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much was spent per pupil in primary schools in Wales in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what was the comparable figure for 1978–79 at constant prices.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Sir Wyn Roberts): In 1989–90 current expenditure per pupil in primary schools in Wales was £1,292. The equivalent constant price figure for 1978–79 was £974.

Mr. Knox: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that current and capital expenditure on education in Wales have risen in real terms since 1979?

Sir Wyn Roberts: I have just given my hon. Friend the figures for primary schools. He will, I am sure, be interested to know the figures for secondary school pupils

which show an even more remarkable increase of about 46–4 per cent., from £1,346 per head in 1978–79 to £1.971 in 1989–90.

Mr. Ron Davies: Does the Minister accept that it is fundamentally dishonest to represent those figures as an increase in real terms when they reflect only the fact that there has been a falling roll? Will he now turn his attention to the state of primary schools in Wales? Does not he recognise that primary schools throughout the Principality are suffering from a decaying fabric, from a lack of support from local education authorities as a result of the Government's cuts in real terms and as a result of the demoralisation of the teaching profession? Will the right hon. Gentleman recognise the crisis that is building in primary schools and, in the last couple of weeks of this Government. start to do something about that?

Sir Wyn Roberts: The hon. Gentleman is wrong on all counts, which is a record even for him. On overall current expenditure on education, there has been a 24 per cent. increase in a period when pupil numbers have indeed fallen, by nearly 15 per cent. On capital expenditure, during the past three years about 6 per cent. less has been spent than we allocated to local education authorities for capital spending, so the blame for crumbling schools must be placed at their door. It is they that have failed to spend the allocations that we have given to them. With regard to teachers' morale, I know that teachers are extremely pleased with the 7·8 per cent. increase which the review body awarded them with the Government's agreement.

Rail Services

Dr. Marek: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has had about the standard of rail services in north Wales.

Sir Wyn Roberts: Twenty representations have been received since the introduction of the latest timetable in September. Most of those concerned the level of inter-city services between Holyhead and London.

Dr. Marek: The Minister may agree with me that, at the next general election, it is technically possible for the representatives of the non-Tory-voting people of Wales to be swamped in the House by a south-east-dominated Tory Government who are hell bent on privatising British Rail. As the Minister's constituency is on the main line to Holyhead, I ask him to give a pledge to the House that in such an eventuality there will continue to be a proper, direct inter-city service between Euston and Holyhead.

Sir Wyn Roberts: The hon. Gentleman bases what he says on some bogus statements about the privatisation of British Rail, which we would heartily welcome, and the inter-city services. For the first time, we have the high-speed 125 trains running between London and Holyhead. They accomplish that journey in the fastest ever time—four hours, which is 30 minutes less than it previously took.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: The Minister has not answered the question. Will he tell the House specifically that there will be a guarantee that, whoever wins the next election, inter-city services will run between Holyhead and Euston —yes or no?

Sir Wyn Roberts: I welcome privatisation of British Rail. I have heard many complaints from the Opposition about the services of British Rail. I am sure that there will be a considerable improvement under a privatisation regime, including an improvement of the services between London and Holyhead.

Inward Investment

Mr. Gwilym Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the value of inward investment in (a) 1979 to 1983, (b) 1983 to 1987 and (c) since 1987; and what estimate he has made of future inward investment trends.

Mr. David Hunt: Between 1979 and 1983, 102 projects were recorded. Between 1984 and 1987, 202 were recorded and, since 1987, 271 have been recorded. The recorded value of inward investment in Wales since 1984 is £4 billion and the number of new and safeguarded jobs now exceeds 100,000. We intend to build on those excellent results in future years.

Mr. Jones: I welcome the successful figures which my right hon. Friend announced. Does he agree that all that would be put at risk if we were to return to the bad old days of excessive strikes and secondary picketing, not to mention the TUC's campaign of hostility towards inward investment in which it has described those companies as alien culture—a comment still not denounced by the Opposition, who have given a nod and wink of tacit approval?

Mr. Hunt: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. The favourable tax regime for companies and individuals is a great attraction, as are the work force and the industrial relations harmony which exists in Wales. When the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) was a Minister in the second half of the 1970s, the number of working days lost per thousand employees was 1,183 a year. Between 1986 and 1990, the figure fell to 174. I now announce that we have the best figures for the past 100 years since records began. In Wales only 17 working days were lost per thousand employees. That would be placed in jeopardy if we were to go back to the bad old days of industrial strife and of the winter of discontent under the previous Labour Government.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Will the Secretary of State advise the Welsh Development Agency, in its efforts to attract new investment, to be a bit more circumspect about whom it assists? Mady Gerrard, formerly of New York, when trading as GG International Ltd., left behind a trail of debts and then went into liquidation. With the full backing of the WDA, she is now back in business. Is that fair to all the small companies, especially in south Wales, to which she owes a lot of money?

Mr. Hunt: I wish that the hon. Gentleman would not cite one example in trying to prove his case. He referred to small companies. I am pleased to be able to announce this afternoon a package of 41 projects by small companies throughout Wales, involving the investment of more than £11.7 million, leading to the creation of more than 400 new jobs. That shows that it is not just major inward investment projects that deserve and receive help. The WDA and the Welsh Office also give outstanding support to small businesses.

Mr. Morgan: If the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) would take off their rose-coloured spectacles for just a moment, they would see that a wave of bankruptcies is passing through Wales—like Sherman marching through Georgia. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the recession is now going so deep and cutting so far into the heart of Welsh industry and employment that it will take us several years and a change of Government to recover?

Mr. Hunt: Not at all, and the hon. Gentleman should not talk down the Principality. Wales is weathering the worldwide recession far better than many other parts of the United Kingdom and the world. I am especially pleased to be able to announce today a £5 million investment by Smiths Crisps in Swansea. That is just another example that shows how well Wales is doing in terms of inward investment.

Mr. Frank Field: Is the Secretary of State aware of the disappointment felt in my constituency at his Department's decision to refer the Hamilton oil project to a public inquiry? Does he accept that many of my constituents—shipyard workers, in particular—feel that the Government have caved in to pressure from one or two well-heeled environmentalists, putting their demands above the needs of the long-term unemployed in Birkenhead and the surrounding area? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that he might be able to counter some of those fears if he expedited the public inquiry? Is he in a position to tell the House how quickly the public inquiry is expected to report?

Mr. Hunt: I cannot comment on the merits of the proposal, which is formally before me for decision under planning law. I recognise, however, that the proposal raises issues whose significance is not merely local, and there have been a considerable number of representations both for and against it. In those circumstances, the holding of a public inquiry offers the fairest, speediest and surest way of dealing with the decision. I am happy to announce that arrangements are now in hand to hold an inquiry commencing on 12 May. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the final decision on the application will be issued as soon as possible after the inspector's report has been received and considered.

Sir Anthony Meyer: I echo the point made by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field).
Is not my right hon. Friend's forceful presence in the Cabinet the main reason for inward investment in Wales? Does he agree that, if devolution has the consequences that the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) predicts, there will be no voice in the British Cabinet arguing for the kind of conditions that have produced massive inward investment in Wales?

Mr. Hunt: I agree with my hon. Friend. I believe that Wales gains considerably through the office of Secretary of State and from having a seat in the Cabinet. I know that the Liberal Democrats have conceded that their proposals for a Welsh assembly would mean the abolition of that post. It is about time that the Labour party came clean and explained why the Leader of the Opposition, having once been so implacably opposed to devolution for Wales, is now in favour of it. The position of Secretary of State is a


great asset in securing inward investment, and it is about time that the Labour party came to terms with the results of their devolution proposals.

Mr. Barry Jones: We all celebrate the success of inward investment, which is crucial for Wales. We also remember that it was a Labour Government who first created the Welsh Office and then the Welsh Development Agency.
Will the Secretary of State concede that the recession is one of the deadliest—and of the utmost seriousness—in respect of the Welsh economy? Whether on the M4 or the north Wales expressway, there appears to be a march to the dole with a loss of more than 2,500 jobs already this year. I hope that the Secretary of State is aware of the redundancies announced by employers in Wales, including British Steel. British Aerospace, Allied Steel, Ford, BP, Ferranti, Marconi, Ferrodo, National Power, Trecwn and Brawdy in Pembroke, Royal Worcester, Christie Tyler and South Wales Electricity. Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that he has no policy or strategy or, in Government, the will to deal with those pressing problems? He will lose parliamentary seats in Wales because he has no policies to tackle unemployment.

Mr. Hunt: As the hon. Gentleman points at me and says that I will lose, I must inquire gently why the Labour party has not yet been able to put up a candidate against me in my constituency. As for the hon. Gentleman's doom and gloom, he is rapidly becoming well known as the agony aunt for Wales. He is an amateur merchant of doom and his comments were a forecast of the kind of problems that Wales would have if ever the Labour party were to win the general election.

Welsh Language

Mr. Butler: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the percentage increase in real terms on expenditure on the Welsh language since 1978–79.

Sir Wyn Roberts: Direct Government grant support for the Welsh language has risen from £0.35 million i n 1978 to £7·6 million in 1992–93. That represents an increase in real terms of 669 per cent.

Mr. Butler: Do not those figures show a dramatic increase in support for the Welsh language since the last Labour Government? What level of indirect support is there for the Welsh language?

Sir Wyn Roberts: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Those figures cover assistance provided through part of the education system and to voluntary organisations. My hon. Friend is quite right, however—more support is given to the language through the education system than those direct grant amounts would indicate. For example, there is £3 million by way of grant under the GEST—grants for education support and training—programme. There is also the Government's very extensive support through their arrangements for the Welsh television channel S4C.

Mr. Rogers: Will the Minister be a little more gracious than his hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Butler) and acknowledge the tremendous efforts of Labour-controlled authorities in south Wales and the valleys in respect of the Welsh language over many years? Will he remind his hon. Friend that making the Welsh language a political football does a disservice to that

language? How can a county like Mid-Glamorgan, which provides enormous support for the Welsh language through primary, secondary and other areas, pay its teachers the new pay award, which will cost the county £1·7 million, when the amount of Government grant will be only £700,000 and a shortfall of £1 million will thus have to be found from the poll tax payers of Mid-Glamorgan, which will mean £3 per head on the poll tax and the county will be capped for introducing that? Can the Minister advise the local authority how to get out of that dilemma created by the Government?

Sir Wyn Roberts: I am, of course, grateful to the local authorities for their assistance and support for the Welsh language, and I do not think for a moment that my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Butler) or anyone in this House is seeking to make a political football out of the Welsh language.
With regard to teachers' pay, I am sure that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) is as delighted as I am that the teachers have been given an increase of 7·8 per cent. He will also be delighted that the local authorities' standard spending assessments were increased by 8·1 per cent. by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Government have given £3·5 million additional money to local authorities in Wales so that they can meet the necessary increase and give the teachers their well-deserved rise.

Mr. Geraint Howells: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will introduce during the next three months a Welsh language Bill to give the same status to Welsh and English in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

Sir Wyn Roberts: The wide-ranging legislative proposals presented by the Welsh Language Board have called for very careful consideration. To this end, the Welsh Office has been consulting other Government Departments which would be affected. My right hon. Friend is weighing carefully the views which have been expressed, with the intention of announcing a decision on this matter as soon as possible.

Mr. Howells: First, I should like to put the record straight, as the Secretary of State misled the House in saying that it was our party's policy to do away with the Secretary of State's office if our devolution proposals are accepted. That is not true.
Secondly, I am very disappointed with the Minister of State's reply, as I am sure that the majority of people in Wales will be, too. Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the people of Wales today that he will introduce such legislation before the next general election and that the same status will be given to the Welsh language as that given to the English language in Wales?

Sir Wyn Roberts: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is not treating the question as seriously as he should. It is all very well for any party, such as the Labour party, to pledge that it will legislate for a Welsh Language Act, without actually spelling out what is to be in that Act. I for one, and my right hon. and hon. Friends, will not commit ourselves to saying that there will be such legislation without knowing precisely what will be put into that legislation. I have said that we are considering the matter most carefully and the proposals that were put before us, and we shall announce our decision in due course.

Mr. Michael: The Minister of State is already practising for opposition. The only choice in the election will be a Labour Government, because the Labour party has firm commitments. We have said that in our first year we shall bring legislation before the House, and we have said what we shall put in it. The right hon. Gentleman's continued suggestions that we have not described the contents are untrue.
Why has the Minister of State advised three Secretaries of State not to proceed with a Welsh language Bill when for a year there has been a consensus as a result of the publication of the measure by the Welsh Language Board? Why have the Government wasted a year, when a Welsh language Act could have been on the statute book by now? The Conservative party has revealed itself to be bereft of ideas and has failed to do the service to the Welsh language that could have been done by publishing a Bill a year ago and bringing it through Parliament this year.

Sir Wyn Roberts: The so-called supplementary question that we have just heard, which was really a statement, is typical of the slapdash, inconsiderate attitude of the Labour party toward a very serious issue which concerns not only Welsh speakers but non-Welsh speakers in Wales. The hon. Gentleman does not do justice to the proposals put forward by the Welsh Language Board. We are giving those proposals very serious consideration indeed.

Job Losses

Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to collect statistics on the number of jobs lost to Wales by outward divestment.

Mr. David Hunt: None, Sir.

Mr. Flynn: Have not the three Welsh Office Ministers become the three unwise monkeys of Wales, who neither see, hear nor talk of unemployment, but hide from it, ignoring the jobs lost through outward divestment? Hundreds of those are in Newport and Llanelli. The Government distort the figures by counting 50,000 people twice, but through all the fiddles comes the truth—that in Gwent 20,000 people are out of work, which is 10 per cent. of the work force. Do we have three monkeys or three cheetahs?

Mr. Speaker: I imagine that that is spelt "ahs".

Mr. Hunt: That is a very silly question about a very serious problem. Of course there are difficulties being faced by firms throughout the Principality wemake no secret of that—but according to the statistics, Wales is doing considerably better than many other parts of the United Kingdom and the world in weathering this worldwide recession. The hon. Gentleman should pay attention to the facts.

Income Statistics

Mr. Hain: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give figures for (a) the percentage of people on retirement pensions as a proportion of the total adult population in Wales, (b) the number of families in Wales entitled to child benefit and (c) the percentage of employees in Wales earning under £20,280 annually.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: The answer is (a) about 23 per cent., (b) about 350,000, and (c) about 90 per cent. Before

the hon. Gentleman asks his usual supplementary question—no, the people of Wales would not be better off under a Labour Government.

Mr. Hain: Is the Minister now aware that the recent figures provided by the House of Commons Library showed that only 2·5 per cent. of the population in Wales would be detrimentally affected by Labour's tax and national insurance policies, whereas 52 per cent.—including pensioners and mothers in receipt of child benefit—would benefit, in some cases substantially? Why do the Government not come clean and admit that, whereas Labour's tax policy would benefit the vast mass of people in Wales, the Government's policies would benefit and protect only a tiny privileged minority?

Mr. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman clearly has not looked at the record of the last Labour Government. Between 1974 and 1979, Labour increased income tax by 3p in the pound. Income tax is now 8p in the pound less than it was then. A man on average income with two children would pay £1,000 per year more under Labour. That is £20 a week. The people of Wales have not forgotten that. Nor have pensioners forgotten that under the Labour Government pensions rose by an average of 0·6 per cent. per year in terms of average total incomes. Pensions have risen by 3·3 per cent. per year under the Conservatives. That is more than the total of the last five years of the Labour Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

Clergy Payments

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what additional payments by the Church Commissioners are made to clergymen and women bearing the title of prebendary or canon; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Michael Alison (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): The Commissiones pay the stipends of two residentiary canons at each mainland English cathedral except Oxford, at a rate some 20 per cent. higher than the national average for a rector or vicar. There are other clergy bearing the titles of canon and prebendary who do so in an honorary capacity and do not thereby receive additional payments from the Commissioners.

Mr. Greenway: Do my right hon. Friend and the Church Commissioners have any part in the payment of the salary of stipend of the small number of lady canons whom I understand to exist? Are there any plans to create canons out of people in holy orders of either sex who are only deacons?

Mr. Alison: Yes, there is a proposal before the General Synod which will enable women deacons to be appointed canons and they would therefore come within the ambit of the possible payment by the Church Commissioners, but the measure enabling such deacons to be appointed as women canons would have to pass through this House before it becomes law.

Mr. Frank Field: Will the Commissioner confirm to the House that when that measure came before the


ecclesiastical committee there was overwhelming support for it and that the committee's view was that, whatever the fate of the women priests measure, the measure to allow women deacons to become canons would give a career structure to women deacons within the Church?

Mr. Alison: I am happy to confirm that. The hon. Gentleman will remember that the General Synod representatives reassured colleagues who were uneasy about the notion of appointing women canons that, unless the ordination of women was accepted by the General Synod, women canons would not be able to preside over or administer the sacraments in the cathedrals.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that there is sufficient differentiation between the payment to a canon and that to a curate, bearing in mind the substantial additional responsibilities that a canon bears?

Mr. Alison: I will certainly consider the figures that my hon. Friend mentioned. The differential between the top and the bottom of the clergy and episcopal salary is a sensitive question which is considered regularly and frequently. My hon. Friend may well have a point that should be considered. I will certainly see that her unease is conveyed to the appropriate quarters.

Agricultural Property

Mr. Flynn: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what is his current estimate of the total of agricultural property held by the Church Commissioners.

Mr. Alison: As at 31 December 1991, the commissioners' agricultural portfolio consisted of about 154,000 acres, mostly let farmland.

Mr. Flynn: Does the commissioner accept that following the vote on Friday it is likely that within a short time there will be a total ban on fox hunting, stag hunting and hare coursing in Britain? Does he believe that the commissioners should lead by example in banning such barbarous activities on their land?

Mr. Alison: No. It has always been the practice in the Church Commissioners' holding of agricultural property to reserve the right of hunting not to the landlord but to the tenant so that the tenant, on the basis of his own conscience or attitude to hunting, can decide whether to let the hunt across the land.

Mr. Tredinnick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that reply will be welcomed in many rural communities, who feel that the campaign against hunting has been wildly misrepresentative and that fox hunting is the most humane way to control the fox population in the country?

Mr. Alison: I voted in the same Lobby as my hon. Friend—I think that he was there on Friday—so I have some sympathy with what he says, but I repeat that the decision whether a hunt can cross a let farm of which the Church Commissioners are the landlord is entirely at the discretion of the tenant.

Women Deacons

Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what is the total number of women ordained as deacons in the Church of England as at 1 January.

Mr. Alison: On 1 January 1991, there were 674 ordained women deacons in the full-time stipendiary ministry.

Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Will he ask the Church Commissioners whether they would be willing to assess—and then publish the results of the assessment—what would be the benefit to the Church in terms of personnel availability if women were able to proceed beyond the diaconate to become priests? As a matter of full-time ministry personnel provision for the Church, has that been considered and if not could it be so?

Mr. Alison: It is a slightly hypothetical speculative variant on which to give a clear answer off the cuff, and while awaiting the progress of the measure, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that although the number of male clergy continues to fall, and has fallen each year for some years, the total of men and women taken together has risen from 10,641 ordained clergy in 1986 to 11,052 last year, so the impact of women deacons is tending the make the total number of clergy go up, whereas the total number would fall if there were a single-sex ministry.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

Buildings and Works

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, what steps are being taken by the Commission in preparation for the transfer of responsibility from the Property Services Agency for buildings and works.

Mr. A. J. Beith (on behalf of the House of Commons Commission): A Director of Works—Mr. Henry Webber —was appointed in July 1991 to head a new Directorate of Works within the Serjeant at Arms Department to undertake the responsibilities formerly exercised by the Department of the Environment. A memorandum of understanding was agreed with the authorities of the other place in November 1991 to regulate the share of the costs of the works directorate between the two Houses. Appropriate estimates for parliamentary works for the next financial year were recently presented by the House of Commons Commission and on behalf of the other place. The Parliamentary Corporate Bodies Bill, which provides for the transfer of property and other legal rights and responsibilities to the two Houses, was presented on 7 February. Subject to the satisfactory progress of this 13ill, the transfer of responsibility for all works services to the two Houses is expected to be achieved at the beginning of April.

Mr. Dalyell: I ask the hon. Gentleman a question of which I gave him notice a fortnight ago. Can Mr. Webber do anything about the intractable problem, probably 50 years old since the bombings, of the difficult but nevertheless shame-making stone rot in the Crypt, which


is extremely embarrassing for anyone who shows visitors with any knowledge at all around the Palace of Westminster?

Mr. Beith: I went to have a look at the problem myself, mainly in the Baptistry area, and I know that the Public Works Office has been busy with it for some time and that the hon. Gentleman has brought the matter regularly to its attention. It is not within the province of the Commission and the authorities of the House until the beginning of April, but the authorities looking after it in the Department of the Environment are well aware of the concern and we intend to make sure that the matter is properly considered.

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

Advisory Council for Wales

Sir Anthony Meyer: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has for an advisory council for Wales.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hunt): I am continuing to discuss the idea of establishing an economic forum with interested parties.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Will my right hon. Friend say a word about the consultations in which he has engaged with the other political parties in Wales and with Welsh local authorities, including those under Labour control?

Mr. Hunt: The proposal was put to me by the Council of Welsh Districts at a time when the Council was under Labour control. Its position has been maintained since the change of control, and I am considering the proposal very seriously.
Let me just say to the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) that if my earlier assumption that the Liberal Democrats would abolish the Secretary of State for Wales was incorrect, I apologise and am happy to accept what he says. The question of the economic forum, however, does not relate in any way to proposals for devolution.

Business Investment

Mr. Edwards: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he now has to stimulate business investment and attract quality jobs for the Monmouth travel-to-work area.

Mr. David Hunt: The Welsh Office, the Welsh Development Agency and other Government agencies operate a wide range of measures to stimulate business investment and to attract quality jobs in all parts of Wales.

Mr. Edwards: Perhaps one of the measures that the Secretary of State could introduce would be the granting of assisted area status to the Monmouth travel-to-work area. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a delegation was preparing to meet him with a document, which has involved a considerable amount of work, to present the case for such status? The people of Monmouth, and the members of Gwent county council, Monmouth borough council, Monmouth town council and Monmouth chamber of commerce, are especially disappointed that the

Secretary of State has refused even to meet the delegation. What other proposals does the right hon. Gentleman have?

Mr. Hunt: I am aware of the case that has been prepared by Monmouth borough council and 1 was very interested to read the report that it produced to support its case.
We announced in 1988 that no change would be made in the current composition of the assisted area map during the lifetime of this Parliament. Since I received the council's submission, however, a number of additional points have been made to me and I am happy to announce that I have agreed to meet a deputation to discuss business investment in the area. The subjects discussed will include assisted area status.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

Office Security

Mrs. Mahon: To ask the Lord President of the Council what recent discussions he has had to improve security for Members' property when left in their offices.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): I have frequent discussions on security matters with the relevant authorities. It is most important that Members report any theft to the Serjeant-at-Arms as soon as these incidents occur.
I am glad to be able to inform the House that, since Christmas, there has been a considerable reduction in the number of reported thefts. As I have often said before, the amount of property stolen would be considerably reduced if valuables were secured and desks and filing cabinets locked when offices are left unattended.

Mrs. Mahon: Has the Lord President had any discussions with the security services? If so, is he satisfied that they are not once again trying to smear Opposition Members, as they have done in the recent past? Will the right hon. Gentleman take the matter seriously? We all know from "Spycatcher", and the amount that the Government spent trying to suppress it, that what I have described took place.

Mr. MacGregor: I have not had discussions with the security services specifically about theft, but I have had such discussions with the relevant authorities. Let me say very clearly that I have found no evidence whatever to support any of the allegations of which I have read. I believe that they are entirely unfounded.

Sir Peter Hordern: Is my right hon. Friend aware that no one has stolen into my room to remove the secrets held by my computer about the forthcoming election in my constituency? Is that because the people concerned know something that I do not?

Mr. MacGregor: I doubt it, since, so far as I am aware, no one has stolen anything from me either. I am sure that such people would be fascinated to read of the wide range of constituency cases on my computer.

Business of the House

Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make it his practice that all parties represented in the House by hon. Members who have taken their seats are included in consultations by him as to the business of the House.

Mr. MacGregor: No. The present arrangements are of long standing, they work well, and I see no need for change.

Mr. Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman has undermined his growing reputation as a fair-minded and modernising Lord President. Will he consider his answer again, and grasp the old nettle? Given that only two parties the Government and the Labour party—are now formally involved in consultations, and given that in electoral terms all parties in the House are minorities—

Sir Donald Thompson: No, they are not.

Mr. Hughes: All the parties are electoral minorities. In the light of that, is not the only fair-minded and democratic way of conducting our business to allow it to involve all properly represented parties in the House of Commons throughout the United Kingdom?

Mr. MacGregor: The discussions take place between parties which represent the vast majority of the hon. Members in the House. Setting the business of the House is a complex process and final decisions are often taken at a late stage. I do not believe that it is practicable to consult all eight minority parties represented in the House and I do not know what we should do with another minority party in the guise the hon. Members for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) and for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields). The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) will know that the minority parties are given a chance to make representations about business of the House and are informed of it. I think that that is the only sensible and practical way to deal with the matter.

Mr. Winnick: As virtually everyone seems to have been informed that the general election date will be 9 April, could not the Leader of the House ask the Prime Minister to make an official statement this week confirming that date?

Mr. MacGregor: I can only say that the hon. Gentleman knows something that I do not.

Dr. Cunningham: Why is the right hon. Gentleman being so coy? We all know that the Government have a timetable for an election on 9 April. Even the Financial Times has told us that the Prime Minister has booked his aeroplane for that date. Since we now have almost weekly guillotine motions and the Government are intent on railroading legislation through the House, why can the Government not make an announcement so that we all know where we are? The country would then know what the Government's intentions are, much of the business which does not have widespread support in the country could simply be junked, and we could get on with the election.

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. There is widespread support for Government legislation

and for those matters on which we have had timetable motions. I have been under pressure to get on with the legislation because many people want to see it in place.
On the other matter that the hon. Gentleman raised, all that is being done represents good contingency planning for the election date, whenever that might be.

Early-day Motions

Mr. Speaker: I wish to make a short statement about early-day motions. In recent days, I have had referred to me a series of almost identical early-day motions which Members have sought to table. In considering the action to be taken, I have borne in mind the rule for questions, which lays down that questions are inadmissible if they are
multiplied with variations on the same point".
Hon. Members will find that ruling in the 21st edition of Erskine May, page 294.
I have decided that it would be in the best interests of the House to apply the same rules to the tabling of early-day motions. Without such a rule, there would be a danger of the order paper being misused, not least during the period before a general election. If I am satisfied that the series of motions submitted are multiplied with slight variations on the same point and thus constitute a campaign, they will not be printed.

RECHAR

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Lilley): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the European regional development fund.
I am pleased to announce that, following discussions with Commissioner Millan, the European Commission has said that it will release the money—about £121 million —due to the United Kingdom under RECHAR programmes. The Government will continue to maintain proper control over public spending. We will make it clear that priority will be given to projects funded from the European regional development fund, and we are taking steps to secure better value for money by increasing competition for Britain's share of the fund.
To achieve this increased competition, the Government want to encourage application for ERDF money from a wider range of United Kingdom spending authorities, including grant-aided bodies. Organisations such as British Coal Enterprise, UDCs and regional enterprise agencies make a valuable contribution to regional development. We are therefore initiating new arrangements which will place them on an equal footing with local authorities.
The Government have representatives on the partnership programme committees which decide on the allocation of European regional development grants. Those representatives will press for greater attention to value for money. The composition of the programme committees will also be reviewed to take account of the wider range of applicants.
To contribute to the RECHAR programmes, the Government will shortly be announcing new business support measures of our own to assist small firms in coalfield areas.
The present system for public expenditure control will remain unchanged. European regional development fund receipts have always been taken into account in determining forward expenditure plans which are in consequence higher than they would otherwise be, but in future published expenditure plans will show forecast receipts separately for each expenditure programme. The Commission has said that this will meet its requirements for transparency and enable it to be satisfied that the European regional grants have a genuine economic impact in the areas concerned. It will demonstrate that public expenditure cover will be clearly available for forecast ERDF expenditures. We shall be discussing with the Commission ways in which the present arrangements for forecasting structural funds expenditures can be improved.
The new arrangements will be introduced at the first opportunity. They will be applied in the 1992 round of expenditure discussions and will thus be reflected in expenditure plans from 1993–94 onwards. RECHAR receipts will, of course, begin to flow in the near future. Transitional arrangements will be made to provide public expenditure cover to accommodate this.
The House will be pleased to know that the threat to future regional fund receipts has been removed, the block on RECHAR funds has been lifted, and that the coal mining areas will receive the money to which they are entitled. The implementation of the RECHAR programmes can now proceed immediately.

Mr. Frank Dobson: Everyone will welcome the fact that the Government have now abandoned their plans——[Interruption.] Everyone will welcome the fact that the Government have now abanndoned their plans to divert European grants intended for Britain's coalfield communities to other areas, including keeping down the poll tax in Wandsworth and Westminster. The Government were caught with their hand in the till. The principled stand of the European Commissioner, Bruce Millan, has ensured that this RECHAR money will be invested, as was always intended, in creating new jobs, better training and a better environment in areas where Government policy has meant that mines have been closed.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that RECHAR money will go to the coalfield communities, including former coalfields such as west Cumbria, and nowhere else? Will he confirm that local authorities which receive RECHAR funds will not face reductions in their capital or revenue allocations by the Government? Will he confirm that this is what Commissioner Millan and the coalfield communities wanted all along? Would it not have been better to agree all this in the first place so that the RECHAR money would already be creating jobs, instead of which we have had a ludicrous 18-month delay followed by this humiliating climbdown?
Is it not true that the Government have accepted Commissioner Millan's requirement that, from 1993–94, RECHAR, and other regional grants, shall be separately identified in allocations to local authorities? Importantly, will the increased allocations to the RECHAR-receiving authorities be offset by reductions in British Government allocations to all local authorities, or will this be new money? Is it not true that the release of RECHAR money in 1992–93 is conditional on the Government's agreement not to allow local government spending rules to reduce the benefits to the mining areas?
Will the Secretary of State confirm that the British Government, who are trumpeting the RECHAR decision as a triumph, played absolutely no part in setting up the RECHAR fund which will bring an extra £121 million to coalfield communities? Is it not true that the Government's position has been, in their own words, "positively neutral"?
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that his belated acceptance of the European rules for regional funds to which Britain signed up in 1988 justifies the view of the Secretary of State for the Environment that what the Government were trying on was no longer viable, and that what has been announced today is plain contrary to the Prime Minister's assertion that Commission Millan was in the wrong?
As Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, will the right hon. Gentleman now turn his attention to reducing the need for RECHAR in future? Has he noted that British mines have been closed while coal imports rise to levels that severely damage the balance of trade; and that, unless some change is made, Britain will soon be importing more than 30 million tonnes of coal a year? Will he press his colleagues to abandon their stupid and short-sighted plans to reduce Britain's 52 collieries to just 14, throwing 40,000 miners out of work and leaving Britain dependent on coal imports? Would it not be better to keep British mines open?
Why does the right hon. Gentleman accept this rundown of the British Coal industry, which is twice as

efficient as any coal industry in the European Community? Would he countenance the rundown of any other industry that was twice as efficient as its German counterpart—if there is such an industry left in Britain?
Finally, is the climbdown over RECHAR the first step towards ending the Tory party's mean-minded vendetta against British miners, their families and the coalfield communities? If it is, the about-turn on RECHAR will be doubly welcome.

Mr. Lilley: The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) clearly does not understand the contents—[Interruption.]

Mr.Speaker: Order.

Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman began by saying that he welcomed the announcement and then made it clear how disappointed he was by the release of the RECHAR money. The fact is that there never were any plans to divert this money elsewhere: it was always going to the coalfield communities. The proof of that is that the delays in releasing the money have delayed programmes in the coalfields. The sooner the money is paid over, the sooner those programmes can go ahead.
I can confirm that there will be no reductions in other funds to local authorities; there never were any, and none was ever intended under the existing arrangements.
It would have been better if these arrangements had been agreed earlier and the Commission had released the money earlier. We have sought throughout to be as positive and co-operative as possible, and we have sought to make our arrangements as transparent as possible. I am delighted that this has at last been accepted by the Community.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the release of RECHAR moneys in future. I can assure him that there will be transitional arrangements to allow for the fact that moneys which ought to have been spent this year will be carried forward into future years, and that extra provision for expenditure in those future years will have to be made.
The hon. Gentleman said that we played no part in setting up RECHAR. I remind him that the structural funds were set up at the behest of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister of the day in 1972–73.
The hon. Gentleman said that we ought to reduce the need for RECHAR in future. I can assure him that we are making the pits in this country into the most efficient coal mining industry in western Europe. That is the best guarantee for their future. I would ask the hon. Gentleman to confirm the admission of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) that at no point has any Opposition Front Bench spokesman pressed Commissioner Millan to speed up the release of these funds, which we wish had been released earlier.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that it will not be in vain for me to ask hon. Members to ask questions about RECHAR and not to make electioneering points.

Mr. Andy Stewart: Many congratulations are in order to my right hon. Friend for showing the European Commission the error of its ways in releasing our money for our hard-pressed coalfield areas. Commissioner Millan is as popular in Sherwood as the sheriff of Nottingham. He has denied my constituents the


opportunities for new job creation and leisure facilities. Does my right hon. Friend agree that at no time has the European Commission had any reason whatsoever for withholding our money?

Mr. Lilley: I think that congratulations are due to my hon. Friend for the vigour with which he has consistently pursued the interests of his constituents and of this country in seeking the early release of this money. I am glad that his voice as well as mine has been heard in the Commission. It is not in the interest of this country that I should stir up problems with the Commission at this stage, but I note the point that my hon. Friend has made. I think that it will be recognised as valid by his constituents and by people throughout the coal mining communities of this country.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Will every penny of this RECHAR money be additional to what the Government had originally intended to spend in these areas, will local government spending and capital limits prevent any of the money from being spent in this or future years, and is any credit due to the Secretary of State for the Environment for changing this Secretary of State's mind?

Mr. Lilley: The answer to the first question is yes and to the second question no. The answer to the third question is that my right hon. Friend and I are always in accord on all matters.

Mr. Kenneth Warren: Will my right hon. Friend accept that I warmly welcome the statement that there are no more problems now on either side of the channel regarding the RECHAR distribution? Can he tell me, however, to whom the money will be paid? Will it be paid to a Government Department, or direct to the recipient who is due to receive it? Can we be assured that there will be absolutely no delay in disbursing the money?

Mr. Lilley: It is funnelled through central Government, but I can assure my hon. Friend that there will be no delay. I believe that we shall also have co-operation from the Community for the speedy release of this money, and its transmission through, as soon as the particular projects are agreed.

Mr. Allen McKay: When the money is paid to each local authority, will it be listed in the Official Report showing what authority it has been paid to, when it has been paid, and how much?

Mr. Lilley: I will certainly consider that request, but it has not been the practice up to now.

Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that this country puts about £300 million into this kitty, that it is therefore clear that the £121 milllion we are now receiving is indeed our own money, and that Labour Members would have done much better over the last 18 months if they had worked with hon. Members on this side of the House to get that money to this country instead of bolstering their own socialist appointees in Europe?

Mr. Lilley: In fact, this country pays into the structural funds something like £300 million more than we are entitled to draw out, even after allowing for the excellent Fontainebleau rebate which improved the situation very considerably, compared with that left by the last Labour Government. However, I can assure my hon. Friend that

we shall do all that we can to enhance the amount of money that we receive from the fund whenever we have reason and claim to do so, and that we shall also do all we can to ensure that it reaches the communities concerned as rapidly as possible.

Mr. Terry Patchett: Does the Minister agree with me that there is nothing like the prospect of a general election to make a Minister address his mind to his own faults?

Mr. Lilley: I had thought that the imminent approach of a general election might make it seem wise to those who sit on the Opposition Front Bench to support the British Government in securing the early release of the money. The fact that they did not do so probably shows poor judgment electorally, but certainly it shows a lack of loyalty to the coal mining communities.

Mr. Michael Alison: May I join in congratulating my right hon. Friend on the persistence and success with which he pursued these elusive funds from Brussels? I remind him that he secured them on exactly the same terms that Bruce Millan would have sought when the was Secretary of State for Scotland.
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, on 22 January, Bruce Millan said that he would be prepared to consider additional funds, over and above the £120 million, specifically for Yorkshire in the light of the recent announcement of 1,100 redundancies, affecting particularly Kellingley and Whitemoor colleries in my constituency?

Mr. Lilley: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks. I assure him that I will press for additional funds wherever there is evidence of additional job losses after the original requests were made. That will, of course, include his constituency and the areas that he has just mentioned.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Is the Secretary of State aware that the coal mining communities of Wales that were being cheated of £19 million will welcome this belated decision? Will he give a firm assurance that, in relation to all future EC funds, the Government will adhere to the principle of additionality and, in particular, that there will be no clawback of money issued to rural authorities in Wales under the LEDA programme, which is now under question?

Mr. Lilley: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this will be particularly welcome in Wales, which has many areas suitable for RECHAR funds. Moneys will continue to be additional, and we have always insisted that they should be. This makes it absolutely transparent that they are and will continue to be additional, so there is no question of clawing back.

Mr. Bill Walker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this decision will be very popular in Scotland, particularly in the coalfields that require recharging, which is what the money is for? Is he further aware that Scottish people have been totally amazed that the Labour party, which aspires to form the next British Government, should constantly attack the British Government for trying to get our money back to carry out projects in our constituencies?

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is quite correct. There will be much scepticism about the position that the Labour


party has taken—not only the parliamentary Labour party but a number of Labour-controlled local authorities. To be fair, some realised that they were cutting off their noses to spite their faces and were only too anxious to seek a settlement. They will be delighted that one has been achieved, and that will be particularly true in Scotland.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Is the Secretary of State aware that, as one who was a Scottish Office Minister with Bruce Millan, I have always considered that Bruce Millan was the finest Secretary of State that Scotland has had in the post-war years? Is the Secretary of State further aware that, even in 1992, I still believe that Bruce Millan is the finest Secretary of State, because, by battering some sense into the thick heads of Ministers and by forcing the Government into this position, he has done more for Scotland than the three Tory Secretaries of State that we have had in the past 13 years and the conveyor belt of junior Ministers who have wrecked Scottish industry? Bruce Millan is in the process of rebuilding our industry.

Mr. Lilley: I have considerable respect for Commissioner Millan, and I am sure that he has respect for the hon. Gentleman, who, as a Scottish Office Minister, was responsible for administering the very system to which Commissioner Millan has been objecting. He would have been responsive to a plea from the hon. Member for early release of the money, and I am sorry that it was not forthcoming.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the much-needed £5 million Lancashire programme can now go ahead, and that it is no thanks to the Labour party that the Government have been able to get back what was our own money in the first place?

Mr. Lilley: Agreement will have to be reached on specific projects, but as soon as it is, the money will flow through and, I hope, go to the project in Lancashire that my hon. Friend mentioned.

Mr. Martin Redmond: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that the delay occurred because of the stupidity of the Government's policy? In view of the 18 months time-lag that has taken place, will he inform us what time scale will now be involved for schemes that will come about as a result of the Government's climbdown?

Mr. Lilley: We would have liked to achieve settlement a long while ago. I had a meeting with Mr. Millan in the company of my fellow Secretaries of State who are involved in the issue, and we sought to achieve agreement back in May. We thought that we were within a hair's breadth of getting it then; only the issue of transparency was identified by him. Consequently, things slipped back. Now that they are settled, we should welcome it.
The second part of the hon. Gentleman's question was, how soon would the money flow through? As soon as individual projects receive agreement, money will come from the Community and at this end, the Government will not impede the flow of that money to the relevant projects. I can assure him of that.

Sir Donald Thompson: Will my right hon. Friend accept the congratulations of his right hon. and hon. Friends and, in fact, of all fair-minded people?

Now that my right hon. Friend has made this breakthrough, will similar or the same rules apply to all regional development grants—for whatever purpose—coming from Europe?

Mr. Lilley: That is quite correct. All European regional development fund moneys will be separately designated in the public expenditure accounts, but we shall, of course, in all cases retain overall control of public expenditure, so not only RECHAR but all ERDF moneys will be treated in this way. That is why the threat of withholding that money as well as RECHAR money has disappeared.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: Is not the Secretary of State aware that, while he has dodged and delayed, the Deep Navigation pit in my constituency and Penallta next door have been closed, leaving us with the huge problem of unemployment as well as that of clearing up the mess left behind? Will he give us a categorical assurance that, as RECHAR was meant to serve directly the needs of the mining communities, the money will be directly spent in the communities where jobs have been lost?

Mr. Lilley: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we have neither dodged nor delayed. We have had every interest in getting the money back into this country. After all, throughout this period we have to continue to pay our contribution to the Community. We wanted the money to come back and I can assure him that, now it is to be released, it will flow individually to the projects in constituencies such as his where it should be and where it should have been all along.

Mr. Michael Brown: Will my right hon. Friend stop beating about the bush'? Is it not the case that an unelected Commissioner in Europe with a loyalty to the European Commission has been trying to withold funds contributed to RECHAR by the taxpayers of this country? Is it not the case that my right hon. Friend has tried time and time again, month after month, to ensure that what should go to coal-mining areas gets there? Is it not a simple straightforward fact that the Commissioner has tried to prevent it and that my right hon. Friend has tried—ultimately successfully—to get the money back to the mining areas of this country?

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend will know that I am a compulsive moderate in these matters, so I would not put it in quite the same language as he does. He is right to recognise that the British taxpayer puts very large sums of money into the Community. Naturally, there is much stronger feeling when any delay is incurred in our share, which is only a minority of that money, coming back to this country, and delight when it finally comes through as it has now done. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks.

Mr. John Evans: When the Secretary of State next meets Commissioner Millan, will he convey to him the grateful thanks of coalfield authorities such as that in St. Helens for his splendid victory over the long-running, mean-spirited intransigence of the British Government? Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Government have been holding on to substantial ERDF sums for a considerable time? Will he consider repaying to


authorities such as St. Helens the debt charges that they incurred in honouring schemes which they have had to fund because of the lack of funds from his Department?

Mr. Lilley: One gets the impression that the hon. Gentleman would almost have preferred the impasse to endure longer. We have managed to persuade the Commission to release the money. It will come through and will go to local authorities, which will deal with the problem that he mentions.

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Will my right hon. Friend reflect that, in spite of his great success today in ensuring that the Commission backs down from its absurd stance on the matter, and although the British Government included my constituency in the RECHAR programme, the Commission took my constituency out of the programme? Will my right hon. Friend address the matter again today, so that the money can come into my constituency in Nottinghamshire? Will he also reflect on the great pity that, throughout this long-standing saga, the Labour party never sought publicly to attack Commissioner Millan to ensure that he made the money available to this country?

Mr. Lilley: I assure my hon. Friend that I shall give close consideration to his request to make representations on behalf of the coal mining areas in his constituency. Any arguments that I can deploy to that effect I will deploy, and I will try to get funds to flow to his constituency which may be additional to those about which we are talking today. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: May I welcome the statement by the Secretary of State today? Will he take a keen look at my constituency of Blyth Valley, in which, over the past five or six years, we have lost thousands of mining jobs?

Mr. Lilley: I offer the hon. Gentleman the same assurance that I will look at the matter, and that I will see what programmes are designated for his constituency and whether there is a case of further funds to be sought.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the Minister accept that the vexed question of additionality has run for a long time? Does he also accept that, like his Government, the previous Labour Government had the problem firmly on their plate? Will he now tell us that, for all time, this hideous corpse has been buried and that, in future, we shall get our own money back for the schemes that it is appointed to finance?

Mr. Lilley: I am afraid that we have not buried the concept of additionality, which, as the hon. Gentleman says, is a difficult one, because it involves determining what would have happened if what did happen had not happened. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we seem to have got agreement in the area. The threat to British money being paid back to us has receded, which is as much good news for Northern Ireland as it is, for all other parts of the kingdom.

Mr. John Hume: May I put a straightforward question to the Secretary of State? Does he accept that the principle that underlies all regional funding in Europe is that it is additional to Government spending to harmonise living standards between the richer and poorer regions of Europe and that it should not be treated as a subsidy to

existing Government expenditure? If it is, it undermines the purpose. Will he now tell the House that he at last accepts the principle of additionality?
Does the Secretary of State agree that a similar serious mistake was made when signing the Maastricht treaty and agreeing to set up a cohesion fund for transportation and the environment, in that no region of the United Kingdom will get a penny out of that fund? That is especially damaging to a region such as Northern Ireland. After the channel tunnel, it will have more serious transportation problems, because it will be the only part that has no land link with the rest of Europe.

Mr. Lilley: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we have always accepted the principle of additionality in respect of Community funds, and it often features in other programmes. As I should have mentioned to the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), the STRIDE programme funds which affect Northern Ireland are also being released. I note the right hon. Gentleman's point that we should not have signed the Maastricht treaty.

Mr. Hume: I did not say that.

Sir Teddy Taylor: As the 1988 regulations to which the Secretary of State referred called for the doubling of structural funds compared with the 1987 level by 1993, is it true that the Government believe that that will lead to no increase in the British allocation of funds? Do the Government agree with the Commission's proposal that the allocation of Community structural funds should be completely separated from other central Government allocations in the United Kingdom public expenditure system? As that is one of the most important points of principle for us for 15 years, will the Minister give us an answer—yes or no?

Mr. Lilley: I can confirm my hon. Friend's point that, although structural funds are to be double what they were in 1988, we do not expect that to lead to any increase in real terms in disbursements to the United Kingdom. That is one reason why the dispute about additionality arose. The regulations said that additional funds flowing from the doubling should be reflected in additional expenditure in the United Kingdom, over and above the normal additionality inherent in the way in which we accounted for that all along. As we were not to receive any additional funds, we found it rather difficult to display that those non-additional funds were additionally being spent. That difficulty, which I described as metaphysical, has now been resolved, and we are back in the world of the substantial.
On the second point, we are simply separately designating as a separate line in respect of ERDF funds for each programme in the public expenditure counts. That is not very different from what we have done in respect of the European social fund moneys, so it is not so much of a precedent as my hon. Friend fears.

Mr. Derek Enright: May I congratulate the Secretary of State on his grovelling apology to Commissioner Millan, who has acted correctly throughout? I also thank the Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs, who, by his presence today, admits that he was wrong in his legal interpretations on RECHAR. Two questions that I would wish to ask—[HON. MEMBERS: "One."] One question that I would wish to ask is this: now that the Secretary of State has lost my


constituency a considerable number of jobs through this delay, will he make it clear to us what discussions took place with Commissioner Millan on the Court of Auditors report, published last December, which rebuked Commissioner Millan for his laxity in not having placed sufficient requirements on member Governments? Are there now sufficient requirements under the Court of Auditors report published on 13 December in connection with structural funds?

Mr. Lilley: If the hon. Gentleman has been hearing grovelling apologies, he has been hearing voices and should seek attention in the appropriate quarter. He should let us know whether he made any representations in an attempt to have the money released earlier. If not—

Mr. Enright: I did, Sir.

Mr. Lilley: In that case, the hon. Gentleman deserves the respect of Conservative Members. He is almost alone among Opposition Members in having done that. Certainly no Front-Bench Member did it, and I congratulate him. As far as the Court of Auditors report is concerned, it always seek financial, but not, I think, doctrinal, rigour.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, having served on the Regional Affairs Committee of the European Parliament, I know only too well how mean the Labour Government —including Mr. Millan—were? Does he further accept that, when the European development fund was discussed in the European Parliament last week, a mere 13 Labour Members were present? The rest thought that nobody could see them and did not bother to turn up.

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend's knowledge of these matters is second to none. She has told the House an important fact, which reveals that the Opposition shed crocodile tears not only in this House but in Strasbourg. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for revealing how little concern Labour Members really have about Britain getting a fair return from European funds.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: The Secretary of State has referred specifically to increasing competition and expanding the number of organisations that may apply for ERDF funds. Will he tell us when he will be publishing the new arrangements, how the information will be disseminated, what qualifications, if any, will be placed on the type of organisation that may apply and how he will ensure that there is a co-ordinated strategic approach by any area in receipt of such funds, given that, in Scotland, at least, our regional authorities have a major responsibility for strategic planning, which we would not wish to be undermined?

Mr. Lilley: The hon. Lady makes an important point, and homes in on something to which we may not have devoted enough attention today. One of the key features of the arrangements that have been brought in at our initiative is to increase the number of organisations that can compete for the given amount of money from Europe so that we can choose the best projects from a wider range

and obtain the best value for money. We shall be announcing guidance on how to do that as soon as possible.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is rather sad to hear sounds of regret from the Opposition that such a good and sensible agreement has been reached? Is it not a good thing and would it not be better for the Opposition to recognise that at long last a Secretary of State has come here with good news about a good story about a good settlement?

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend highlights a tendency on the Opposition Benches to believe that what is good for Britain is bad for Labour. The Opposition respond in a way which shows that that is their basic feeling here as in economic matters.

Mr. Edward O'Hara: I was delighted to hear the Secretary of State's statement of the high regard in which he holds Commissioner Millan. Will he here and now repudiate the disgraceful aspersions cast on the integrity of Commissioner Millan over the withholding of RECHAR funds, and will he give a commitment that he will call on his right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to immediately withdraw the scurrilous accusation that Commissioner Millan has been acting out of party political considerations?

Mr. Lilley: My right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is noted for his fastidious language. It is inconceivable that he would have said anything implying that. If any aspersions are due, they should be cast on those Labour Members and Labour local authorities which put pressure on Mr. Millan to prolong the withholding of that money.

Mr. Harry Barnes: What impact will additional RECHAR money have on district councils in coalfield communities in respect of their capital allowances and standing spending assessments? Will North-East Derbyshire be able to move up from being 335th of 336 district authorities in terms of standard spending assessments per poll tax payments?

Mr. Lilley: The money will be transmitted effectively to local authorities through borrowing approvals rather than through standard spending assessments to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I cannot tell him how that will affect individual local authorities, but I will happily try to get my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to transmit that information to the hon. Gentleman when it is available.

Mr. Frank Haynes: I am grateful for the statement from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. However, he could have made that statement earlier. It clarifies the situation: there are now two wallies in the Cabinet. After the fight that we have put up, how much of the RECHAR money will go to Nottinghamshire, bearing in mind that the Nottinghamshire Tories supported the Government in blocking the money going to the areas where it was needed?

Mr. Lilley: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have the same high regard for him as he has for me. He may have failed to realise that his Conservative colleagues from


Nottinghamshire were among the most vigorous in seeking the early release of that money. I believe that quite significant sums will go to Nottinghamshire and will benefit the coalfield communities in those areas, which will probably return more Conservative Members at the next election.

Mrs. Sylvia Heal: In welcoming today's announcement, which is long overdue for the people of mid-Staffordshire and elsewhere in Staffordshire who desperately need the money to regenerate the local economy, I must ask the Secretary of State to confirm that, as a result of the announcement, there will be no reduction in the general level of Government expenditure in 1992–93 and 1993–94.

Mr. Lilley: I entirely agree with the hon. Lady's remarks. Far from there being a reduction in Government expenditure, because of the transitional arrangements necessary to accommodate the expenditure delayed from this year and deferred and passed over into next year, there will be slightly higher spending than would otherwise have been the case, because we will accommodate that expenditure which has unfortunately been delayed by the withholding of the money until now.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Would the Secretary of State confirm that the money which will come to St. Helens, as the last two coal mines have closed in the past five years, will come as quickly as possible, as we have many thousands of people who need to be put in work and who formerly worked for the coal mining industry?

Mr. Lilley: I shall certainly do all that I can to bring that about.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is not the Secretary of State telling the House rather a lot of porkies today?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that we will not have that word. It escaped my notice last week. I had to look it up in the dictionary, but now that I know what it means, the hon. Member should please withdraw it.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: In so far as you and the I-louse know what I mean, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could proceed.
Is not the truth to be found in the leaked Heseltine letter? It says:
We cannot afford such an own goal in areas which are politically important to us.
West Cumbria was important to the Government. That is why they have caved in.

Mr. Lilley: I do not comment on leaked drafts, but I will comment on Cumbria. I can understand the insecurity that the hon. Gentleman feels. This measure will be welcomed in the coal mining areas in that part of the world. They will note that little pressure has been exerted by Labour Members to achieve it. It has been achieved by a Conservative Government, and they will be pleased with it.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Since this money is coal-related and, in a sense, pollution-related, will the Government consider with local authorities what could be done in the situation that now arises in Scotland where there is serious evidence from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration that a massive ozone hole—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a hit wide of the statement.

Mr. Dalyell: No, it is precisely on this matter.

Mr. Speaker: Try and get it in order.

Mr. Dalyell: It is precisely on the point. It is pollution-related. The Scots are now faced, so we are told on page 1 of our national newspaper. The Scotsman, with —[Laughter.] It is not funny to have 300,000 skin cancer-related cases. That is the possibility. The evidence from NASA is no laughing matter whatsoever. I am asking a serious question. Will Government Departments consider this alarming—[Interruption.] If cancer is a laughing matter—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The whole House knows that the hon. Member has a great interest in this serious matter. It would probably be better raised in the Adjournment debate which I have offered the hon. Member, because he would then get a fuller reply.

Mr. Dalyell: I would ask simply for an acknowledgement of the concern of the Department of Trade and Industry in this ozone-hole-related matter.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the distribution of these funds will involve the Scottish Office and mining communities in Scotland? If that is the case, will he impress upon Scottish Office Ministers the need for parity of treatment in the distribution of RECHAR funds and RENAVAL programme funds? Many people in my constituency are deeply unhappy and disappointed with the performance of the Scottish Office in respect of the RENAVAL programme. I hope that mining communities in Scotland are treated better and more humanely than my constituency in respect of the RENAVAL programme.

Mr. Lilley: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that this settlement applies equally to funds flowing through the Scottish Office to Scottish constituencies and local authorities. If he is asking for parity of treatment in the flow of funds from the Community, of course that will exist. On the flow of funds from the taxpayer, there is more generous treatment in Scotland than in other parts of the United Kingdom. If the hon. Gentleman wishes it to be reduced, perhaps he will spell that out a little more clearly.

Mr. Peter Hain: Surely the Secretary of State should be apologising to the people of south Wales for the scandalous way in which he has blocked all that money —perhaps as much as £30 million—while thousands of jobs have been lost in my constituency and in other mining communities in south Wales. How much money will now come to us, and what will the total be?

Mr. Lilley: The message seems to have been lost in the post as far as the hon. Gentleman is concerned. We have not been blocking this measure; it has been blocked by the Community. That block has now ended, and everybody is satisfied by that. Significant and substantial funds will flow to south Wales coal mining areas via my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Mr. Hain: How much?

Mr. Lilley: That will depend on the amounts specifically agreed on specific projects by the Community,


but we will be acting to try to get agreement at the earliest possible stage and for the money to flow through accordingly.

Mr. William O'Brien: The success of the RECHAR initiative was brought about because local authorities argued with the Commission that some special treatment should be given to the areas in question. The fact that the Minister of State, Department of the Environment was present until a few moments ago demonstrates the need for local authorities and the Coalfield Communities Campaign people to be involved in immediate talks.
Will the Secretary of State assure me that the Coalfield Communities Campaign people will be included in talks about the distribution of RECHAR and the fact that there are further resources to be obtained? It is because of Labour-controlled authorities that we have got this far. Can we have further support for the initiative, with the co-operation of local authorities, in distributing the funds and requests for further funds to help rundown coalfield community areas?

Mr. Lilley: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that local authorities will continue to play their part on the committees that oversee the programmes.

Dr. John Reid: The Secretary of State talks about victory, but is it not true that today we have seen a victory of all the scale and dimension of Dunkirk? Does the Secretary of State remember Churchill's words, that victories are not composed of evacuations and withdrawals? Rather than talking about having moved the Commission, will he apologise to people in my community in Harthill and Shotts, and people throughout Lanarkshire, who have been devastated by coal closures and hit by steel closures for 18 months but have been refused urban aid? Will he apologise for the fact that, for 18 months, the money has been prevented from being distributed to them and he is going to them now only by virtue of the fact that he has withdrawn and the Commission has won? Will he join me and the people of Harthill, Shotts and Lanarkshire in sending our congratulations and those of the whole House to Commissioner Bruce Millan on the fight that he has fought?

Mr. Lilley: The hon. and learned Member—

Dr. Reid: No, not learned.

Mr. Lilley: Well, philosophical—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I withdraw that slur an the hon. Gentleman's character. The hon. and philosophical Member has misheard if he thinks that I have talked about victory. I have assiduously refrained from such talk, so obviously people have drawn their own conclusions. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the sooner that the money can flow through to areas which have been deprived of it the better we will all be pleased. That is what we all want.

Mr. George Foulkes: I am neither learned nor gallant, as you know, Mr. Speaker.
Is it not true that Cumnock and Doon Valley, which will receive a substantial amount from the RECHAR fund

for the west of Scotland, and which now has an unemployment level above 20 per cent., has had its money delayed entirely as a result of the intransigence of the British Government in coming into line with other Governments in Europe, who were happy to accept the rules?
It still worries me that the Secretary of State said earlier that "some guidance" about applications would be issued later. In Cumnock and Doon Valley, the local authority, the enterprise trust and other groups have already put a detailed, comprehensive scheme to the Scottish Office. Can I have an assurance from the Secretary of State that there will be no delay whatever in considering the scheme, so that people do not have to wait any longer than they have already waited?

Mr. Lilley: I can certainly give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. Any guidance will be issued only to those who need it because they have not already learned how to make such applications. We want to encourage the widest range of organisations to put forward projects so that we get the best choice of schemes to which we can allocate the money.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I thought that the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) had a point of order. [Interruption.] We have not yet reached that stage. I believe that Ms. Quin wishes to ask a question on the statement.

Ms. Joyce Quin: The Secretary of State used the statement to announce changes to the way that European funds that are not connected with the additionality dispute with the European Commission would be administered in future. He mentioned the increased competition for funds that he was hoping to establish. Can he assure us that those areas that do not win competitions will not be abandoned, and that the criteria by which areas are judged to be eligible for European funds will be based on need, not simply skill in filling in applications or succeeding in certain competitions?
Can the Secretary of State assure us that the measures set out in his announcement will not weaken the role of local authorities in European funding? He said that he wishes to widen the composition of the programme committees to urban development corporations and others. Can he assure us that this will not simply be a way to put his own nominees on committees rather than having elected local representatives who know the needs of their own communities?
As the Secretary of State has given way to the European Commission on the main substance of the additionality dispute, will he take the opportunity, as my hon. Friends have asked him to do, to make a public apology to Commissioner Millan for the way that his integrity has been impugned over the past year? Several of my right hon. and hon. Friends referred to the timing of this decision and of the Government's climbdown. Surely the electorate would be wiser to trust the Labour party, which has campaigned for the release of these funds all along under the terms that Commissioner Millan wanted and which were of direct benefit to the areas concerned, and to realise that the Government have proved themselves untrustworthy in this matter.

Mr. Lilley: I can assure the hon. Lady that there is no change in the eligibility rules for areas, projects and


programmes, which are essentially Communitywide. We are trying to encourage more organisations to apply within those rules for funds. I can assure her that there is no question of removing from the committees that organise these funds existing local authority members and other members.
As to an apology, I think it best just to express the delight of the House that the money has been released, and the hope that it will move speedily to the areas where it is required to help those who are afflicted by coal-mining rundown.
The hon. Lady concluded by referring to the Labour party having campaigned for this money. That is what it has conspicuously failed to do. It sought to make a party political point out of this. It refused ever to make representations to the Commission on behalf of the coal-mining areas and it has shown a two-faced response to the good news that the money is being released. That good news is the message of the day, and that: is the response that we shall see on the ground in the areas that we all care for.

Points of Order

Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I take points of order, may I say that there are two three-hour debates, which are timed, and a further debate of an hour and a half, in which many other hon. Members wish to participate, so I hope that points of order are on matters with which I can deal?

Mr. Win Griffiths: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have the Government made a request for the Secretary of State for the Environment to make a statement about the National Audit Office report, which shows that the taxpayer forked out over £2 billion too much for the disastrous water privatisation, and that the then Secretary of State for the Environment made secret £2 million payments to companies handling privatisation?

Mr. Speaker: I have had no such request, but I understand that the Public Accounts Committee may look at this matter.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During questions on the statement, an allegedly leaked letter was prayed in aid in support of an argument. My concern is that the Labour health spokesman, the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) has clearly, we all now know, organised industrial espionage and theft so as to get the information used—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: What about Waldegrave's PPS?

Several Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me deal with this, please. The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) must not make such an allegation against an hon. Member. He should withdraw the word "theft".

Mr. Hughes: On your instruction, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the word "theft". The point that I am making is that somebody close to the hon. Member for Livingston is plainly implicated in this. Should not the hon. Gentleman explain to the House how he comes by these documents so regularly? Is it not an abuse of the House that the hon. Gentleman comes to the Opposition Despatch Box and uses that information, and uses it deliberately to mislead?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not say such things. He has now been in the House for the duration of a full Parliament. Will he please put himself in order, and withdraw that last comment?

Mr. Hughes: I shall change it to "inadvertently to mislead".

Mr. Speaker: That is almost as bad. In any case, I think that the whole House would deprecate the use of leaked information, whatever its source.

Mr. Allan Rogers: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker—the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes). May I seek your advice? That was at least the third occasion on which I have heard the hon.—well—Gentleman name an


Opposition Member on a point of order. You pointed out to him, Mr. Speaker, that it would be normal courtesy, and decent of him, to inform the hon. Member concerned before naming him. I realise that we are in the middle of the lead-up to a general election, but for the hon. Member for Harrow, West to keep on doing this contravenes all the protocols and courtesies of the House.

Mr. Speaker: I hope very much that at all times, but especially just before a general election, hon. Members will adhere to the conventions of the House, which are of long standing and enable our business to proceed in good order.

Mr. Terry Davis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, which has nothing to do with the preceding points of order.
As the Comptroller and Auditor General is an officer of the House, Mr. Speaker, will you ask him to speed up the publication of the National Audit Office report on the accident and emergency service—especially in view of the fact that the position at the Worcester royal infirmary has now become so bad that two doctors are reported to have resigned in protest?

Mr. Speaker: I shall need to look into that matter. I shall be in touch with the hon. Gentleman about it.

Mr. Barry Porter: On a very short point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I revert to what my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) said earlier? A leak, as I understand it, is generally accidental. What should we call information that is not given accidentally—information that is given deliberately to the House?

Mr. Speaker: It is not for me to say. As I have said, I deprecate the use of such information on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Harry Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I shall be brief, but I regard this as important. I am addressing you in your role as Chairman

of the Speaker's Conference—which, as you know, deals with electoral matters—rather than in your role as Speaker.
It probably escaped your notice, but, at the weekend, a very senior member of the Scottish National party suggested in Scotland that no one over the age of 35 should be allowed to vote in the forthcoming general election in that country. That would not affect me; I should still be able to vote. What would your attitude be, however, if such an outrageous suggestion were submitted to you on behalf of the SNP—if it were proposed that all the old-age pensioners in Scotland, and all other people over 35, should be disfranchised?

Mr. Speaker: As it happens, that piece of information did escape me. Last weekend, I paid a visit to Ulster—which I thoroughly enjoyed—so I do not know about the matter that the hon. Gentleman has raised; but he said "if the suggestion were submitted", and it has not been so submitted.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As a Scottish nationalist over the age of 35, may I assure you that there has been no such suggestion? The hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) should not believe everything that he reads in certain newspapers.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the kindest thing that I can say is, perhaps that was another leak.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Further to those points of order, Mr. Speaker. May I say that your visit to Northern Ireland was widely welcomed? All parties in the House were represented at your reception, and we wish you and your good lady well. Let me remind you that you are the only Speaker who, as yet, has not thrown me out of the House: I appreciate that.

Mr. Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman—but I think that we had now better move on.

European Economic Area

[Relevant documents: Fourth report from the Trade and Industry Committee (House of Commons Paper No. 347 of Session 1989–90) on trade with EFTA and the Government reply contained in the Committee's third special report (House of Commons Paper No. 666 of Session 1989–90).]

The Minister for Trade (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the proposals described in the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Trade and Industry on 30th December 1991, relating to the draft Agreement on the establishment of a European Economic Area; and supports the Government's view that the Agreement should be entered into by the Community and its Member States subject to agreement on amendments to the draft necessary to deal with incompatibilities between the draft and the Treaty of Rome identified by the Court of Justice in its Opinion 1/91.
The creation of the european economic area is a major step forward for the Community. It will bring significant economic gains to British industry and British consumers. The Government very much welcome this major agreement and look forward to signature within the next few weeks.
What we shall be signing is the most ambitious and wide-ranging agreement entered into by the Community. It will extend the main principles of the single market to the seven European Free Trade Association—EFTA—countries. I remind the House that those are Austria, Finland, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland.
A single market of 19 west European Countries stretching from the Arctic to the Mediterranean will be created. It will cover the "four freedoms"—free movement of goods, capital, services and people. It will also cover related matters, ranging from agriculture to co-operation in research and development.
This debate is particularly timely. Last Friday, the Commission and EFTA negotiators made a declaration that the EEA negotiations had been successfully concluded. The next step will be formal initialling of a text by the negotiators this week. We expect the final text to be ready for signature by member states and the EFTA countries next month, allowing their Parliaments to ratify by the end of the year.
The declaration by the negotiators was made in the light of agreement last week on amendments necessary to meet the concerns about the EEA expressed by the Court of Justice. Those amendments affected the competition and institutional provisions of the EEA—I will describe the new version of those provisions in some detail later.
I know that it is not ideal to debate the agreement when we do not have a text before us. I hope that the full explanatory memorandum that I submitted will go some way towards making good the absence of a text.
It might help if I first describe the contents of the agreement and the benefits that the Government believe that it will bring to the United Kingdom and to the Community. I will then describe the institutions of the EEA, referring briefly to some of the amendments that were agreed last week to deal with the problems arising from the opinion of the Court of Justice on the agreement.
The first and perhaps the best known of the four freedoms is free movement of goods. When the United Kingdom left EFTA to join the Community in 1973., the

Community established free trade agreements with the remaining EFTA members. Under these free trade agreements, there is already tariff-free trade between the Community and EFTA in industrial goods and processed agricultural products. The EEA improves free movement of goods in a number of important respects.
There will be common technical regulations. The community and EFTA already work together in creating common European standards, but each side maintains its own technical regulations for purposes such as health and the environment. Those different regulations amount to a significant barrier to trade, as the Select Committee on Trade and Industry recognised in its report.
The Community and EFTA technical regulations have much the same objectives, but they achieve those objectives by different means. Under the agreement, EFTA will adapt to follow the methods used in community measures.
Manufacturers in the EEA will therefore have to follow only one set of regulations instead of a possible eight sets now. A major barrier to trade with the EFTA countries will be eliminated.
The agreement also eliminates other important non-tariff barriers to trade. Perhaps the most significant of those are the prohibition of discriminatory taxation on goods, the application within EFTA of rules on open public procurement based on Community legislation and the adoption of common rules on intellectual property. Those provisions will tackle some of the main potential types of discrimination against exporting companies. In addition, customs procedures and rules of origin are to be streamlined. That will make the task of the exporter of goods simpler and cheaper.
With those measures on the free movement of goods, the EEA will improve significantly the ability of exporters to trade throughout the 19 countries of the Community and EFTA. There will be a significant advance on existing free trade agreements. British companies will have greater export opportunities, and British consumers will benefit from lower prices and more choice.
For a market to be truly open, it must have rules that ensure fair competition. One of the most important parts of the agreement is that on competition and state aid. The EFTA countries will take on competition and state aid rules based on those of the Community. Those will include rules on restrictive practices and monopoly abuse. In addition, the EC merger regulations will cover the Community and EFTA.
The competition and state aid rules will be enforced by the Commission and a new independent EFTA surveillance authority with powers based on those of the Commission, with appeals going to the European Court of first instance or the EFTA court.
The adoption of similar rules by the Community and EFTA, which will be enforced by two independent authorities, will be a crucial element of the EEA. The conditions for competition throughout the 19 countries will be substantially improved. That will obviously benefit consumers. It will also help companies, which will no longer have to face a wide range of substantially different rules, and the agreement will lead to an open and competitive market throughout western Europe.
Unlike goods, services are not covered in the existing free trade agreements between the Community and EFTA. The agreement will lead to the free movement of services. The rules on services will be based on article 59 of the


treaty of Rome and the related secondary legislation. So the agreement will eliminate restrictions on the freedom to provide services within the EEA by nationals of the Community and EFTA who are established within the EEA. The services covered include transport, telecommunications, audio-visual services and financial services.
That freedom to provide services throughout the area is a major achievement. It will create new opportunities for businesses in which Britain, in particular, has traditionally been strong. That is so especially in financial services, where the EEA will adopt rules based on Community legislation on insurance, banking and securities. For example, British banks will enjoy a single "passport" to carry out business throughout the area.
The agreement also goes beyond the existing free trade agreements in providing for the free movement of capital. There is already comparatively free movement of capital between the Community and EFTA. The main advantage in enshrining the current practice in rules based on Community law will be that most restrictions by EFTA on inward investment will be lifted.
The fourth and final freedom provided for by the agreement is the free movement of persons. The agreement creates the right of EC and EFTA nationals to work throughout the EEA.
An essential element of the free movement of persons is the right of establishment, which will apply within the extended European area.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Will the Minister outline the position of immigrant workers long domiciled in the European Community? Would gastarbeiter in Germany, for example, be given the privilege of free movement throughout all the countries incorporated in that economic area?

Mr. Sainsbury: I was referring to the right of establishment, which applies essentially to Community and EFTA nationals who will be able to operate as self-employed persons anywhere within the area covered by the agreement. They will be able to set up and manage undertakings under the same conditions as local nationals and they will be able to establish branches and subsidiaries.
There will be mutual recognition of professional qualifications throughout the EEA. Professionals such as lawyers, doctors and accountants will be able to practise in another country within the EEA without the need to re-qualify.
Those elements will form the basis of an area throughout which people will enjoy considerable freedom of movement—to work, establish businesses and carry out their professions. That will be to the advantage of British nationals who wish to move within EFTA.

Mr. Denzil Davies: Is the Minister saying that nationals of Finland, Sweden or one of the EFTA countries will now be able to arrive at Heathrow and be allowed in with no restrictions or inquiries, provided that they have a passport for the country in which they are living?

Mr. Sainsbury: No, that is not what I was saying. I was referring to the right to carry out one's profession, the

mutual recognition of professional qualifications and the right for self-employed persons to set up in business. We are dealing with economic activity, not travel as such.
In addition to provisions essential to the four freedoms to which I have referred, the agreement also covers many related provisions. Examples are those on consumer protection, environment, statistics and company law.
There will also be increased co-operation between the Community and EFTA in Community programmes in a number of fields, such as research and development; information services; education, training and youth; small and medium-sized enterprises; tourism; and the audiovisual sector.
EFTA has also agreed to adopt measures to assist the poorer regions of the Community. The most important of those measures is a fund that will be set up and financed by EFTA. It will consist of 500 million ecu in grants, which will be given during a five-year period. In addition, EFTA will provide an interest rate subsidy of 3 per cent. on 1·5 billion ecu of loans.
The regions that will benefit from the fund will be Northern Ireland, Greece, Portugal, the Republic of Ireland and specified areas of Spain. The Government fought hard to ensure that Northern Ireland would be a recipient of assistance from the fund.

Mr. Denzil Davies: How are "poorer regions" to be defined? Why is a region like Wales, with gross domestic product per capita almost as low as Northern Ireland and the lowest in Britain, excluded?

Mr. Sainsbury: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that there is an agreement within the Community on the areas that qualify. Those areas qualify under the agreement, as under other Community arrangements.

Ms. Joyce Quin: Did the Government make out a case to the European Commission and EFTA to include help for other areas that have experienced industrial decline, such as Wales, north-east England and Scotland?

Mr. Sainsbury: During the negotiations, the argument was whether the same areas should qualify under those special arrangements for the European economic area agreement as qualified under other European Community arrangements. We fought hard to ensure that Northern Ireland was included in the "cohesion arrangements". They are not meant to cover small areas where there may be a problem—Interruption.] I am not referring to Wales as a small area, but the hon. Lady seemed to suggest that a town where a major employer had closed should be included in the agreement.

Ms. Quin: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Sainsbury: If the hon. Lady will excuse me, I must get on, because this is a time-limited debate. I expect that she will have an opportunity to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and make her point then.
One of the most important subjects covered by the agreement is fish. The EEA does not extend the common fisheries policy to EFTA, but the agreement and separate exchanges of letters that have been negotiated in parallel will provide for reductions to tariffs on fish and fish products and for increased access for British and Community vessels to EFTA waters.
Tariff reductions will apply to a very wide range of fish species on a progressive basis. This will clearly benefit British consumers and processing companies. It is important to note, however, that tariffs on three species of particular sensitivity to United Kingdom producers will not be affected. These are herring, mackerel and salmon. The Government fought hard and successfully against strong demands from EFTA that tariff reductions should also apply to those species.

Dr. Godman: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Sainsbury: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be brief.

Dr. Godman: I shall be brief. Under the terms of the agreement about fish, Spain and Portugal are given access to grounds in which they have no history of fishing. Why is that?

Mr. Sainsbury: I suspect that the hon. Gentleman knows that that was the result of long and hard negotiations and formed part of the cohesion aspect of the negotiations under which the poorer countries of Spain, Greece, Portugal and the Republic of Ireland sought compensation for admission to the agreement of the relatively rich EFTA nations. Part of that cohesion consisted of the loans and grants to which I just referred, and part was in the form of fish. The important point for the House is that British fishermen will benefit from greater access to Norwegian and Icelandic resources.
The Community share of the total allowable catch for north Norway cod under the existing EC-Norway agreement will be increased from 2·14 per cent. to 2·9 per cent. The United Kingdom receives about two-thirds of that share. On current estimates of the total allowable catch—the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) is knowledgeable on this subject—the United Kingdom will receive more than 6,000 tonnes in 1993, which is nearly double the 1991 quota.
In addition, fixed amounts of cod in Norwegian waters will be allocated to Spain, Portugal and Ireland as part of the EFTA package for the poorer regions. Iceland will provide a small additional quantity of red fish. The allocation of this will he decided by the Community in due course. The United Kingdom has made it clear that it wants its fair share of this Icelandic fish.
The arrangements on fish were extremely difficult to settle. The industry is of special importance to a number of EFTA and Community countries, including, of course, Britain. Given the sensitivity of the sector both here and in other countries, I believe that the deals struck on tariffs and resources are good for Britain. We have protected from tariff reductions the species that are most vulnerable to increased competition from EFTA, and we have obtained a guaranteed share and an increase in the resources available to our fleet.
Before leaving the main sectors covered by the agreement, I should mention agriculture. Under the agreement, the EFTA countries will not participate in the common agricultural policy, but there will be a number of tariff reductions on agricultural products. Some of those reductions will be reciprocal. Others will be unilateral reductions by the EFTA countries on products from the poorer regions of the Community as another part of the EFTA measures for poorer regions.
This account of the main contents of the EEA makes it clear that it covers a wide range of sectors. For the EEA to lead to a level playing field across these sectors, or as near a level playing field as can be achieved, it is necessary to have an adequate institutional structure. The main political body of the EEA will be the EEA council. The council will consist of Ministers of the Community member states and the EFTA Governments plus the Commission. It will be responsible for political direction of the EEA.
Under the EEA council, there will be an EEA joint committee consisting of officials of the Commission, member states and EFTA countries. The joint committee will be the main forum for day-to-day co-operation between the two pillars. The two main functions of the joint committee will be to adopt new EEA rules and to settle disputes.
New EEA rules will be based on new Community legislation. There will be informal consultation between the Community and EFTA during the passage of Community measures. The aim will be to ensure that these measures are adopted in such a form that EFTA can accept the measures as EEA rules, but the Community will retain the ultimate right to legislate as it sees fit.

Mr. Barry Porter: Does my right hon. Friend agree with Mr. Edward Morton, a gentleman whom I have not had the pleasure of meeting but who writes learnedly in the Financial Times? Mr. Morton states:
The EEA offers them"—
EFTA countries—
a consultation process so that they can be under no illusion that the actual decisions will be taken anywhere else than in the EC Council of Ministers with such input from the European Parliament as the Maastricht summit might allow." That is right, is it not?

Mr. Sainsbury: My hon. Friend is correct, and I suspect that it is for that reason that some EFTA countries have applied to join the European Community.
The original intention of the Community and EFTA was that an EEA court would play a key role in settling disputes between the two sides. The Court of Justice ruled that such a court was incompatible with the treaty of Rome. There was agreement last week that, instead, the joint committee should settle disputes.
If a dispute concerns interpretation of an EEA rule, the two sides can agree to have the matter resolved by the Court of Justice. The Joint Committee will be able to take other measures to deal with the problem, including possible suspension of the relevant part of the agreement, or rebalancing measures. It will also be possible for certain limited procedural matters to be referred to arbitration.
EFTA will create two new independent bodies to ensure the good functioning of the agreement by EFTA states. There will be an EFTA surveillance authority with enforcement functions and powers similar to those of the Commission. There will also be an EFTA court, which will be responsible for matters such as infraction proceedings brought by the EFTA surveillance body and competition cases arising within the EFTA pillar.

Sir Russell Johnston: Does the fact that the European Parliament has called for the new agreement to be again submitted to the Court of Justice make any difference?

Mr. Sainsbury: I hope that it will not be submitted and that all 19 countries will be able to ratify the agreement in time for it to come into force on 1 January 1993, which is the firm intention of the participating parties. We would not want anything to obstruct that arrangement, which is clearly to the benefit of Britain.
As within the Community, it is not enough simply for the EEA states to agree to adopt common rules. If the extended market is to have value, the rules must be implemented and enforced properly. The EFTA surveillance authority and the EFTA court will ensure that that happens.
I opened by saying that the EEA was perhaps the most ambitious and wide-ranging agreement to be entered into by the Community. The agreement will create a market of 380 million consumers, responsible for almost half the world's trade. It will lead to benefits for consumers and companies throughout the 19 countries. It will provide for closer co-operation between the Community and its closest European neighbours. For Britain, it will provide new opportunities for our exporters and benefits for our consumers. It will bring more fish to our fishing fleet and new funds to Northern Ireland.
The creation of the European economic area is a substantial contribution to the Government's objective of developing a Community that is open, outward looking and market oriented. It will facilitate accession to the Community by the growing number of EFTA countries that wish to apply, and it will ensure that trade within western Europe is based upon the principles of an open market economy that we hope will extend one day throughout the whole of Europe.

Ms. Joyce Quin: On behalf of the Opposition, I welcome the progress that has been made towards the establishment of the European economic area. We strongly approve of ever-increasing co-operation between the countries of the European Community and the countries of EFTA. That seems to me and others to make great sense in today's world and it will help to solve some of the trading—and other—difficulties between the two groups.
As the Minister pointed out, a huge market is hereby created—the biggest in the world. About 380 million people are involved in the wider European area; a tremendous amount of trade is also involved. There is great interdependence between the two trading blocs. Trade with the European Community amounted to some 56 per cent. of all EFTA exports last year, and EC exports to EFTA amounted to about 60 per cent. of EFTA's imports. So the two blocs are closely linked, and this agreement will promote further co-operation and trade between them.
We are talking about countries with which we have much in common and with which we have had a great deal in common for many years. Particularly pleasing to the Labour party is the fact that there are countries in EFTA with very good social and environmental records, as well as good economic performance. The countries concerned are wealthy, and their wealth will certainly be to our mutual benefit. All the countries involved have higher per capita GDP than the average in the EC itself. Perhaps this agreement will finally bring to an end the economic

divisions which used to be described as "Europe at sixes and sevens" in the days when the European Community numbered six and EFTA seven.
I pay tribute to the Norwegian Prime Minister, Mrs. Brundtland, for the work that she has done in promoting the agreement. She was involved in discussions with the Commission president in 1988–89, and those discussions were one of the important stimuli for the conclusion of this agreement.

Mr. Ian Taylor: Would the hon. Lady also like to praise the excellent work of the Conservative party in Norway, which has done a great deal to ensure that the negotiations have continued successfully?

Ms. Quin: I understand that there has been quite a degree of cross-party support in Norway, but for various reasons I especially wanted to mention Mrs. Brundtland.
I am glad that the legal difficulty which seemed so prominent a few weeks ago now seems capable of resolution. It would have been a tragedy if the political and economical desirability of such an agreement had foundered on the legal niceties about which members of the European Court of Justice were concerned. I understand that an unofficial European Commission paper provided the basis for agreement last week. Rather oddly, the paper was called a non-paper—I believe that that is the official description of an unofficial paper in Community parlance. Perhaps another term should have been used.
Be that as it may, I hope that that non-paper has resolved the outstanding difficulty, although I accept the point made a few minutes ago by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) that the European Parliament may want to express concern about the legal arrangements, and that that might prolong the discussions throughout the course of this year. If the European Parliament wants to refer the matter back, I hope that the Governments, the European Commission and the European Parliament will be able to agree to a satisfactory compromise so that the agreement can go ahead and come into operation at the beginning of 1993. Certainly, by far the best time for this agreement to come into force would be the beginning of 1993, when the completion of the internal market is also supposed to take place. It seems only sensible that the two should go hand in hand.
Obviously, the world trading strength of Europe which this agreement represents gives Europe a position of considerable trading and economic power, but I believe that that position also carries with it considerable responsibilities. The Community and EFTA combined need to ensure that their actions promote world trade and do not result in a fortress Europe of the kind that many people, particularly outside Europe, still worry about. Perhaps at the end of this debate the Government will spell out in a little more detail how they see the implications of the agreement for world trade. It remains as important as ever it was that there should be progress on a firm agreement within the framework of GATT. We hope that this agreement will help, not hinder, the progress that must be made towards a successful conclusion of the GATT round.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: While I very much agree with the hon. Lady that it is important to avoid building a fortress Europe, does she agree that the


agreements will assist countries such as Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Poland which have been at such a disadvantage for so long and will smooth their eventual entry into the Community—an entry which, although delayed, will be welcome when it occurs?

Ms. Quin: The hon. Lady is anticipating our debate later this evening, when we shall consider the agreements with the countries of eastern Europe, but I certainly agree that helping the countries of eastern Europe and forming trading relationships with them is vital. I certainly hope that nothing in this agreement with EFTA will delay agreement with the countries of eastern Europe—an agreement to which we must attach a high priority, not just for economic reasons but for political reasons and reasons of world peace.
I wish to express some reservations about the Government's attitude to GATT. The Government seem to speak with two voices: the Department of Trade and Industry says that we must reach agreement within GATT as soon as possible, but the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has been defensive about the Community's common agricultural policy and seems to have played little part in agreeing with some of the criticisms of the CAP advanced by the United States and by the Cairns group. If the Government had not antagonised their European partners with their double opt-out at Maastricht, they might have had more success in persuading their European partners to make further progress towards a successful outcome of the world trading negotiations which are so important for our economic future.

Mr. Barry Porter: The hon. Lady is usually extraordinarily fair. On reflection, would she agree that objections to the reform of the common agricultural policies—a reform which is essential if we are to get any agreement on GATT—have come largely from the Germans and the French? I have not noticed United Kingdom Ministers causing any trouble—they are entirely trouble-free people—so will the hon. Lady apologise for what she has just said?

Ms. Quin: I was thinking of the many newspaper articles which appeared a few months ago criticising the Government for their over-loyal attachment to the European negotiating position, especially on agriculture. I should be happy to pass the hon. Gentleman the various press clippings that I have to that effect—they are well substantiated, and they certainly show that the Government have been somewhat over-zealous in their defence of the common agricultural policy, and have not done as much as they should to promote a worldwide agreement.
We need to assess how the agreement bears on the likelihood of EFTA countries which want to apply for full membership of the Community succeeding in obtaining it. There are suspicions that some countries may be unsure about enlarging the Community and may prefer to deepen rather than widen it at this stage. They may feel that this agreement satisfies the countries of EFTA so that we do not have to make progress in accepting into the Community those EFTA countries which have applied for full membership. Will the Government make their position on that clear?
The agreement should not be allowed to slow up the applications of countries which want to become full

members of the European Community. As they meet the criteria for full membership, they have every right to submit their applications and to have them dealt with sympathetically and speedily. That applies also to the countries in eastern Europe which at this stage are applying for associate membership but which eventually want to become full members of the European Economic Community.
When the Minister winds up, I hope that he will give us a few more details about what the agreement means in terms of benefits to the EFTA countries and what changes the EFTA countries may, as a result, have to introduce. We know that certain EFTA countries have rules regarding outside investment that make it difficult for companies in Britain and other parts of the European Community to invest there. I hope that the Minister will supply a few more details about whether there will be any remaining hurdles. I am thinking of the rules in Norway and in other EFTA countries, such as Finland.
We must also think about what the agreement means for us in Britain, particularly in our present parlous economic state. I believe that the Government made a tragic mistake at the European summit at Maastricht last December in opting out of both economic progress and the social chapter. It worries me, therefore, that the EFTA countries—which hope, with the European Community countries, to create this large economic area—may see the United Kingdom as a semi-detached member of the European Community, and may therefore regard this country as a less attractive country in which to invest and as a less certain member of the European Community in future. I hope that the Minister will deal with that issue in much more detail than we have heard up to now.

Mr. John Butterfill: Surely the hon. Lady recollects that President Delors said that the contents of the social chapter were likely to increase costs in this country and that it was the absence of those costs that led President Delors to say that we would become more attractive for inward investment. Is not the hon. Lady standing logic on its head?

Ms. Quin: I have often agreed with many of the things that President Delors has said in the past, but I do not agree with him about this issue. It is totally hypocritical of the Government to argue for a level playing field and then seek to distort it by means of unequal social conditions which put British workers at a disadvantage.
I hope that the Minister will provide a few more details to supplement those which appear in the explanatory memorandum, which does not clarify the position as much as it ought to do, regarding the different sectors of the British economy and how they are likely to be affected by the agreement.
The Minister rightly mentioned the importance of the agreement to the service sector. I agree that it is important. We may find that our service industries are able to expand in the EFTA countries more easily than they have been able to expand in certain existing member countries of the European Community. As for financial services, great opportunities will open up for us, but I hope that the Government will press the case for the implementation of the consumer directive and consumer safeguards when it comes to financial services within the European Community—something that they have failed to do tip to now.
Have the Government carried out a sector by sector survey of what the effects on our beleaguered industries are likely to be? I understand—perhaps the Minister will confirm it—that certain sectors are not included in the agreement. I understand that coal and steel are excluded sectors. Does the Minister believe that that will be a problem for Britain's coal and steel industries? The shadow Secretary of State for Energy said that British coal is the most economically and efficiently produced coal in the European Community. If the agreement included coal, would it not be possible for our coal industry to look at the EFTA countries as possible future markets? Have the Government carried out any studies or held consultations with the coal industry, both management and work force, about any opportunities that would be available to the coal industry in the EFTA countries?
Can the Minister tell us about the growth areas for our industry as a result of the agreement'? Will he comment on the worrying lack of preparedness for the single market that a survey published last week illustrated? Can he say whether the Government intend to look at that lack of preparedness in terms of the agreement with the EFTA countries? It will be important for our industry to be properly prepared not just for the internal market but for the European economic area when it comes into force.
The Select Committee on Trade and Industry made specific recommendations to the Government about helping our industry to prepare for the European economic area. I hope that the Minister will return to that important matter when he winds up the debate.
The Minister rightly referred to agriculture and fishing. Agriculture is not included—happily, the EFTA countries are to be spared having to adopt the common agricultural policy, but fishing is included to a certain extent. When those difficulties between the European Community and EFTA were at their height, it was described as a cash and cod dispute. I am pleased that the United Kingdom is to have increased cod allocations and that its fishing opportunities will be increased somewhat, but I am a little concerned about what rights Spanish vessels may have. They will be fishing in areas where traditionally they have not fished before. Many of us are worried about the huge catch potential of Spanish fishing vessels, particularly if proper conservation measures are not introduced at the same time.

Dr. Godman: Spanish fishing vessels going into Norwegian waters will encounter a kind of policing that they do not encounter in European Community waters. The Norwegians are very tough policemen when it comes to their fish stocks. I suggest to my hon. Friend that little or no fish in Icelandic waters will he offered to United Kingdom fishermen.

Ms. Quin: I accept what my hon. Friend says. It is important that whatever fishing agreement is reached should be properly policed. I regret the fact that policing of our own waters is often inadequate and that that has led to the over-exploitation of certain fish stocks.
My hon. Friends have asked in interventions what the agreement means for people. We have heard that it will promote the free movement of people and the right of establishment between EFTA and European Community countries. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and

Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) referred to the position of gastarbeiter, which was not satisfactorily dealt with by the Minister. I should like him to give an absolute assurance that none of our ethnic minorities, who have sometimes experienced practical difficulties in travelling to other European countries, will be disadvantaged by anything in the agreement and that their interests will be looked after carefully when the agreement comes into force.
As for what the agreement means to the regions of the United Kingdom, the Minister was dismissive of our concerns regarding the cohesion funds and how they might be used to help the regions of the United Kingdom, apart from Northern Ireland. We very much welcome the fact that the cohesion funds will be used to benefit Northern Ireland. I feel strongly about that. None the less, the Minister did not say whether the Government had even put forward the needs of what are recognised in the European Community as regions in need of support: the objective 2 areas, as they are called—the traditional industrial regions that have the experienced economic decline in recent years.
We are not talking about small regions, and I was surprised when the Minister seemed to dismiss my comments as though I were talking about towns and villages. We are talking about Wales, Scotland, the northern region, the north-west, Yorkshire and Humberside, and the west midlands. We are talking, therefore, about a large proportion of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Barry Porter: There is not an awful lot left.

Ms. Quin: In terms of territory, that is true. A large part of the United Kingdom has suffered industrial and economic decline under this Government. We very much want measures to be taken to rectify the regional imbalances.
I believe that the agreement could also represent a great potential for some of our regions, particularly those fortunate enough to face eastward, which will therefore find themselves in a geographically advantageous position in relation to the new combined market of the European Community and EFTA. The north-east hopes to be a bridge between the European Community and EFTA, as it is so well positioned geographically. The same is true of Yorkshire and Humberside, and of eastern Scotland. I hope that the Government will work with those regions to ensure that they make the best use of their economic potential. As the agreement will come into force at the beginning of January 1993, I am comforted by the fact that a Labour Government, committed to regional measures, will work with those regions, to their economic advantage.
What discussions has the Minister held with local authorities and the regions about the potential of the agreement? It may change the geography of Europe and make regions that have become accustomed to thinking of themselves as being on the periphery feel that they are more central to European developments in the future, which I welcome.,
The Minister mentioned research and development, which is important. I am glad that, under the auspices of the agreement, there will be joint initiatives between the European Community and EFTA, but the Minister gave few details, and there is little in the explanatory memorandum.
One crucial question which always arises when we debate European affairs is how level the playing field will be. I am still worried about the nature of the playing field, even as a result of the agreement. State aid varies widely throughout the Community. On the whole, state aid in EFTA countries is lower than in Community countries, but the playing field is far from level. One thing that has worried me—I hasten to say that I am not a subsidy junkie —is that we have reduced subsidies to industry unilaterally rather than within a framework agreed in the European Community. We must seek to correct that if our industry is not to suffer a disadvantage, as it has in recent years.

Mr. Christopher Gill: Is the hon. Lady saying that EFTA countries, which have lower state subsidies, have been less successful than EC countries?

Ms. Quin: No. I am saying that state aids can sometimes have a good or bad effect. Britain has much to learn from the supportive system in the European Community and EFTA countries—for example, the German regional Ender network and the similar system in Austria, an EFTA country which is applying for European Community membership.
I should like the Government to consider export credits, for which a level playing field has not been created in recent years. The Government have increased export credit premiums to industry, whereas industry in other countries, including in EFTA countries, has not been disadvantaged in the same way.
Do the Government feel that the institutional arrangements being set up to govern the agreement can work effectively? It seems that the institutional set-up of the European Community of 12 is already becoming unwieldy. What will he the consequences for administration, languages and so on when the Community consists of 19 or more countries?
Do the Government have any views on the simplification and streamlining of European institutions, or on something that Labour Members have traditionally been worried about—the democratic deficit and the difficulty that national and European parliamentary institutions experience in influencing what is going on in the secret conclaves of the Council of Ministers and the council of EFTA Ministers?

Mr. Butterfill: Will the hon. Lady assist us from her considerable expertise on the procedures of the European Parliament? She said that the Parliament wished to refer the agreement back to the European Court of Justice. I understand that it voted to do so last week, but that the Commission is saying that such further reference is not necessary. Can the Parliament reverse that vote, can it fudge it, or is it landed with it?

Ms. Quin: The European Parliament has given its view, as expressed in the vote, and it is for the Commission to respond. Other hon. Members may have more information, but my understanding is that the Commission could disregard the Parliament's views. However, in practice it is unlikely to do so. Therefore, I think that we are in for a period of further protracted negotiations on the subject. As the Minister has been party to the negotiations, perhaps he will comment on that when he replies to the debate.

Sir Russell Johnston: Picking up what the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) said, is not the European Parliament supposed to ratify this treaty? Is that not one of the consequences of Maastricht?

Ms. Quin: Indeed. If the Commission has not responded to the European Parliament, the Parliament may refuse to ratify the agreement. Although theoretically the Commissison is able to disregard what the Parliament says, in practice it is rather unlikely to do so.
The agreement is good, and the Opposition support it. It certainly makes sense for it to come into force at the beginning of 1993. The Government's overall approach to European policy has been to marginalise us in important areas, especially the economic and social areas. For that reason, the agreement will have much greater benefit to this country if a Labour Government bring it forward at the beginning of next year.

Mr. Kenneth Warren: The Select Committee on Trade and Industry welcomes this opportunity for a debate on the Floor of the House. We recommended such a debate when we studied trade with EFTA nations in 1990, and I thank my hon. Friend the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for having the good sense to allow hon. Members the chance to debate the agreement before a decision is taken on the form of the alliance with the European economic zone.
The agreement is a remarkably sound proposal and represents a remarkable achievement by all parties to the negotiations. In our 1990 review, we visited each of the EFTA nations with the exception of Liechtenstein. They were all eager to take part in an arrangement with the European Community, but none of us expected that it would be possible to hold a debate such as this only 18 months after they began to turn to the opportunities of the European Community in such a cross-party fashion.
Business men and the majority of parliamentarians throughout the nations that we visited were unanimous in their wish to be part of the European Community in some form or another. The Conservatives in Norway were leading the drive in that country. Our mission to those countries was slightly more newsworthy than our visit to each of the east European countries. Within six months, each of those countries had had a revolution. It has been suggested that we should adopt the title of the remarkable congressional committee in the United States, of Select Committee on Assassinations.
I am concerned that there should be no hold-up in the negotiations brought about by members of the European Parliament dancing around on the head of a pin as they usually do. I was concerned to read in the Financial Times and The Times last Saturday—I quote from the former—
The European Parliament has further muddied the water by calling this week for any new EEA draft treaty to be resubmitted to the court"—
the European Court—
for its opinion.
I know that it has to find a way to justify its existence, but I trust that it will not stand in the way of this remarkable opportunity to bring about the creation of a market of 40 per cent. of all world trade.
I deal now with a problem which faces us in the European Free Trade Association as it has faced us in far too many parts of the world. We have problems with a


consistently poor balance of payments record, and I regard the opportunity of these barriers coming down and of getting free access into EFTA, which has a consistently larger gross domestic product per head, as unique, especially for quality exporters from the United Kingdom market. The GDP per capita in the free trade areas is between 15 per cent. and 50 per cent. greater per head of the population, and our attention was drawn to the opportunity for quality goods exports into the markets of Sweden, Switzerland and Austria.
With regard to the recommendations made in the Select Committee's report, I was pleased to hear my right hon. Friend talk about the harmonisation of technical regulations and the mutual recognition of technical standards in the EEA. However, may I be assured that we shall not require those countries to lower their standards but that we shall try to rise to some of their standards—especially in terms of environmental protection—and especially of those set in Austria and Finland? I commend them to my right hon. Friend as worthy of further study. There is always a need to try to raise the quality of life which could be a major contribution to the negotiations.
The hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) wondered whether there would be level playing fields. We always call for level playing fields, but I have never found them anywhere in the world. We should not count on them at any time. We must make do with the best opportunities we have to get into a game, whatever the quality of the pitch.
On the free movement of services and financial services in particular, will my right hon. Friend give some guidance on where the negotiations have got so far in terms of foreign ownership of companies, including banks? At the moment, there are severe restrictions within EFTA countries on ownership by foreign companies. May I also ask him about preferential public procurement? As he remarked, there are many state organisations in those countries and we want to be assured that there will be right of access, especially in those concerned with transportation and energy.
On transportation, what progress will be made in the negotiations—which we hope will soon be successfully resolved—to give the European Community access to a single and liberalised market for scheduled air transport services? As my right hon. Friend knows, Scandinavian air transport costs are about the highest in the world, and they are a great deterrent to exporters to go about their business there. Within the agreement that already exists between Swissair, KLM and the Scandinavian Airlines System, I hope that air transport liberalisation can be achieved more quickly than has been the case in relations across the European Community.
Fishing has already been mentioned. I must declare an interest in respect of Hastings and Rye. I regret that our boats will not be able to get as far as Icelandic waters even on a calm day, but we never give up trying. When the Select Committee visited Iceland and Norway, we were conscious of the point that has already been made about the need for those countries to be assured of not only the protection but the conservation of their fish stocks. I must speak up strongly for the people of Iceland, for whom they are the sole major resource. It is ridiculous to think of the likelihood of the Spaniards ravishing their fishing grounds.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point, and I wholly endorse what he said about the conservation of fish stocks. Is he aware—he will undoubtedly have seen this when he was there—that the Icelandic Government have instituted by far the most rigorous and impressive programme of conservation of fish stocks of any country which has those interests at heart? Will he draw the attention not only of my right hon. Friend the Minister but of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to that, because our fisheries—as my hon. Friend knows—are coming under the same pressure, especially on the east coast?

Mr. Warren: I am very glad that I gave way to my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames), because he makes a very sound point. The conservation measures that we saw in Iceland were of a world calibre of leadership. The question that occurs to me is, what is the advantage to the Spaniards in terms of the European market of scouring the fish stocks of, for example, Iceland, when they will merely sell on into the same market in which the Icelanders are trying to sell? I hope that we shall stand up vigorously for the Icelanders having forgotten—I hope—the cod wars of the past, and that we shall regard them as allies in wanting to share the market.
I know that a number of hon. Members want to contribute to the debate, so I shall conclude. I am conscious of the United Kingdom's identity of political interests with EFTA, especially with those of the northern tier of countries with which we share many common values. One advantage to the United Kingdom of such an extension would be that we would no longer be on the perimeter of the European Community—our centre of gravity would be more towards the centre of the combined interests of EFTA and the European Community.
As we move towards agreement, another remarkable step forward will be that neutrality and the balance with those who want to form military alliances are no longer a division or a problem. Ireland has been the only neutral within the European Community, but we shall, within the agreement which is being negotiated, bring in the interests in neutrality of Austria, Sweden and Finland and also of Iceland. We have here not only a major trade opportunity but a major political opportunity of important dimensions to this country.
As this agreement is being forged, may I ask my right hon. Friends and his colleagues in government—as they will be after the general election—to raise their eyes to new horizons and to consider the opportunities of incorporating the nations of eastern Europe as rapidly as possible into an economic zone, not merely the association agreements now being made? As chairman of the British-Russian parliamentary group, may I ask that the Commonwealth of Independent States is not forgotten, because we must offer it the possibility of being able to join the prosperity of western Europe as quickly as possible.
I am delighted to have had this opportunity to lend my support to the agreement which is commended to the House by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Denzil Davies: Like the other hon. Members who have spoken, I welcome the draft agreement and hope that it will be accepted.
I recollect the Minister saying that the countries of the European Free Trade Association would not have to bear the burden—perhaps those were not the words that he used—of the common agricultural policy. The thought crossed my mind that it was a very good agreement for EFTA and that perhaps we could consider applying for membership of EFTA so that we could have the benefit of not having to contribute to the CAP, but no doubt that is not possible.
I will raise two matters which are not connected. The first is the cohesion fund. The Minister did not deal with the matter thoroughly and was extremely brief, although it is important. The Minister said that the EFTA countries will contribute 500 million ecu in grants over five years to what is described in the jargon of the Community as a "cohesion fund". Perhaps that contribution is the danegeld that they have to pay for not being part of the common agricultural policy. The Minister then told us that Northern Ireland is the only region in the United Kingdom that will be able to benefit from the cohesion fund. The Republic of Ireland will also benefit, and we have no objection to either Northern Ireland or the Republic benefiting.
I make no apology for mentioning Wales, because it is the poorest region in Britain. On European Community figures for last year, and taking the average as 100, gross domestic product per head for Wales is 85. Scotland is exactly 100. The north-west, the north-east, Yorkshire and Humberside are slightly higher. The south-west, the east midlands and the west midlands are all higher. Wales has the lowest GDP per head in the whole of Britain.
Wales is located in the west of Britain. The hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren) said that the agreement shifted the centre of gravity of the Community. As a result of what has happened in eastern Europe over the past few years, the centre of gravity has moved eastwards and, as a result of this agreement, it is now moving slightly northwards. The western areas of Britain will suffer. The whole of Ireland will be compensated to some extent, whereas Wales and the other western parts of Britain are in danger of falling between two stools.
The same is true of the Maastricht agreement, which set up a cohesion fund and an infrastructure fund. Both are based on the same definition of the poorer regions of Britain.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Is it not a basic feature of the Maastricht agreement that Northern Ireland is excluded because it is part of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Davies: I hope that the Minister will answer that question. It has never been clear to me whether the rules that apply to the cohesion fund under the European economic area agreement also apply to the cohesion fund under the Maastricht agreement. I understood that the Maastricht agreement dealt merely with national GDP per head. As the United Kingdom's GDP per head is higher than 100, Northern Ireland and Wales are excluded. This cohesion fund may be slightly different. I am sorry that the Minister hardly dealt with that point. I hope that he will tell us why Northern Ireland was included—there is no objection to its inclusion—whereas Wales, for example, was not included. Is Northern Ireland included in the Maastricht cohesion fund? If it is, why is not Wales included? Perhaps Wales is included. We must deal with that matter because it is extremely important.
It may take some time to attain economic and monetary union; but, as we move towards it, the centralisation of currency and the fact that we shall not be able to control our own currency or, to a considerable extent, our public expenditure will mean that the areas on the periphery—which, if Ireland is to be an exception, will be mainly those in the west of Britain, especially Wales, the north-west of England and parts of the west of Scotland—will not get the attention or benefit that they deserve. I hope that the Minister will give us a more adequate and a clearer explanation of the cohesion funds when he winds up the debate.
The second matter may sound esoteric and may not seem to be connected with the first point. I refer to the legal opinion of the European Court on the original draft agreement. My hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin)—I do not criticise her for this—spoke about legal niceties. That is one way in which to describe the matter, but I believe that the court's opinion goes far further than legal niceties. The court set out clearly its view about what the European Economic Community, or European union as it will be called, is all about. I understand that the European Parliament may wish to send back to the court even the cobbled-up compromise reached as a result of the court's condemnation of the original agreement. If that happens, we may again come into conflict not with the court, but with the way in which the court interprets the basic purposes of the European Economic Community or European union.
Paragraph 17 of the court's opinion says that it follows, among other things, from certain articles of the treaty that "that treaty"—that is, the treaty of Rome—
aims to achieve economic integration leading to the establishment of an internal market and economic and monetary union.
The opinion refers to the original treaty of Rome to which we adhere as a result of a vote in the House on the royal prerogative in 1972. Let us he under no illusion. Despite all the things that we were told in 1972, adherence to the treaty meant adherence to economic and monetary union, and not merely to a free trade area.
The opinion continues:
Article I of the Single European Act makes it clear moreover that the objective of all the Community treaties is to contribute together to making concrete progress towards European unity.
The Single European Act was about European unity.
When one listened to some members of the Cabinet who now criticise the Act, it seemed as if the Act was just about the free movement of goods. Of course it was not. As the court has said and as the preamble to the Act says, the Act is about concrete progress towards "European unity".
The court also said:
It follows from the foregoing that the provisions of the EEC Treaty on free movement"—
the free movement of goods—
and competition, far from being an end in themselves, are only means for attaining those objectives.
That was the fundamental dilemma in respect of the EFTA-EC agreement. The court says that the articles on the free movement of goods and competition rules, and all the directives linked to them, must be interpreted on the basis that they lead to European unity.
I do not know what European unity is. Nobody has defined it and nobody seems to have a clue what it is. Is it


a federal or a confederal union? It is a serious matter that the court interprets directives on the basis of a goal called "European unity" which it is not prepared to define.
I digress a little by mentioning briefly the problem of Sunday trading. The Torfaen borough council case, which went to the European Court, was decided on the basis that any restriction on Sunday trading was a limitation on article 30 on the free movement of goods. I suppose that it is. If anyone closes a shop anywhere in the EC, it is a restriction on the free movement of goods. A sensible court which did not have a great goal of European union which it wanted to achieve would have said, "It is de minimis. Let us not bother about it." The European Court could not do that. In the court's view, a restriction under article 30 meant that the goal of European unity would somehow be affected. There was a nonsense decision.
There is a fundamental question here about the nature of the Community. It is no good our going to Maastricht, or the Foreign Secretary managing to have the word "federal" removed from that treaty, if the fundamental proposition advanced by the court is that we are talking in the EC about progress towards European unity. I do not know what European unity means, and it is a strange court of law that says that everything must be interpreted in the light of European unity and does not have a clue what that means.
That brings me to my final point, which is that we appoint judges to the court. I have never believed that there is too much wrong with the way in which our system of justice operates, with the Lord Chancellor appointing judges to the courts of England and Wales. There may be a case for a small committee of senior judges to advise him, and I have an open mind on that. The European Court is an entirely different matter. It is a political court whose goal is European unity and which interprets directives and treaty agreements in accordance with that political goal.
One of these days, we will have to look at the views of those appointed. Apparently, one judge was appointed recently and another is about to be appointed. There is also the Advocate-General. In the United States, which has a similar constitution, judges are asked their views on matters such as federalism and jurisdiction of the court. Apparently, we do not ask the judges whom we appoint to the European Court their views on European unity. Do they have a clue what it means? Have they ever thought about it? Those are matters which, some say, we should discuss.
The problem with EFTA and the EC highlights that difficulty. It was the EC's legal people who eventually said that the matter had to go to the European Court because they could see that there was a fundamental conflict in the development of the Community. The Community cannot develop as a free trade area, including all those other countries—which the Government seem to want and about which we are all in agreement—if we have the court saying that everything must be geared towards European unity, whatever that may mean.
We shall have to wait to see what happens with the cobbled-up agreement. Perhaps it will be all right. I do not know; I suspect that it may not be all right. I repeat that this is not a legal nicety but a fundamental problem, to

which the House will have to return before too long, concerning the development and eventual nature of the Community to which we belong.

Mr. John Butterfill: I find myself in a slightly strange position. I am usually somewhat critical of the Commission and support the concept of redressing the democratic deficit. On this occasion, however, I support the position that the Commission has taken and am rather critical of that which the European Parliament has adopted.
We owe a debt of gratitude to Frans Andriessen, who has persisted with this matter despite having been obstructed by the European Parliament and the European Court. We need to take a broad view of these matters. We are talking about a dramatic development, in that the European economic area will comprise 19 European countries. Most important, it will take within itself a group of countries—primarily the Nordic countries—that have an enormous contribution to make to the concept and development of European democracy. The Nordic countries have one of the longest established democratic traditions in Europe. They have much to teach Europe about parliamentary democracy. We have made our own important contribution, but the more countries with such traditions we have in Europe, the better, and a step that will almost inevitably lead to the enlargement of the Community is extremely welcome.
It is rather sad that juridical minutiae seem to be preventing that from happening. It is not particularly edifying to see lawyers and the European Parliament arguing over such minute matters. The Commission itself believes that, under article 238, we could proceed as it had originally proposed. As I understand it, the only issue regarding the competence of the court was that the court felt that its competence would not extend throughout EFTA and that a compromise arrangement would therefore need to be made.
I hope that the arrangement that we have now reached will mean that the matter can now proceed quickly and that the St. Valentine's day decision will lead to a swift consummation of the love affair between the 19 nations of the European economic area. The draft treaty ought to be endorsed as quickly as possible. If 19 European Governments can agree that they wish to follow a particular course of action, it seems to me thoroughly undesirable that the institutions of the EC should seek to prevent them from doing so on purely technical grounds. It will be a sad reflection on the European Parliament if, the first time that it exercises its enlarged powers under the Maastricht treaty, it uses them so as to obstruct the agreement that has been worked out.
The agreement is enormously important to the whole European Community. In particular, in relation to Maastricht, the cohesion fund that has been established will mean that there will be considerable additional resources to help with the convergence of the economies of the European Community. The importance of that should not be underestimated. Inevitably, considerable problems will arise in achieving the degree of convergence envisaged under the Maastricht treaty, and, unless additional funding is available, that convergence could be long delayed.
The creation of the EEA, with the additional funds that the wealthier countries from the northern fringe and Switzerland and Austria will bring, will help that process considerably. In that regard, can the Minister tell us the extent to which the cohesion fund as proposed will meet the likely level of contribution that would be required from the EFTA countries had they been applying now for full membership of the Community?
This marvellous opportunity should be grasped by the whole Community. If it is necessary to interpret treaties in more flexible ways, I hope that we shall do so, and I hope that the European Parliament, in particular, will not stand in our way.

Sir Russell Johnston: As always, I found the speech of the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) most interesting. I do not know that I agree with him that the referral of the treaty on the EEA to the European Court was legally insignificant and a technicality—I shall return to that in a minute—but I strongly support the paean of praise that he uttered for Nordic democracy. As he will know, Nordic democracy is non-confrontational, consensual and founded on proportional representation. I hope that we shall be infected with it very soon.

Mr. Ian Taylor: They have Conservative Governments in Nordic countries.

Sir Russell Johnston: Proportional representation does not preclude Conservative Governments.
The Liberal Democrats support the establishment of the European economic area, which, as several hon. Members have said, is clearly the prelude to the extension of the European Community. It also sounds the death knell of the alternative concept of a loose economic grouping, put forward by those who argued first against the establishment of the EC and then against moves to make it more effective by more effective integration.
EFTA was the only alternative to the European Community. That was why the British Government of the day, in their short-sighted fashion, were unwilling to work with the then six and took a leading role in establishing EFTA as the alternative. We abandoned that, along with Denmark and Ireland, in 1973, and it is now set to be wound up altogether. Therefore, we should recall the fact that those who took that "have our cake and eat it" attitude were wrong. Some, sadly, like the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), are still wrong.
I will not prolong this short debate, as many hon. Members wish to speak. Three hours is an absurdly short time to examine such a width of issues with any thoroughness. The Minister himself called it the most ambitious agreement so far signed by the Community. That highlights the great difficulty facing the House in dealing collectively in the Chamber with European Community issues.
The fourth report of the Trade and Industry Committee is full and detailed, and the Committee and its Chairman, the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren), from whom we have already heard, deserve much credit. However, the report is a year and a half old, and it has not been debated. In any event, the views of a Committee do

not necessarily reflect the opinion of the House as a whole. The Government's reaction appeared in October 1990 and, to my knowledge, it has not been debated either.
I do not believe that such a procedure can be considered an adequate representation of Parliament's views on European Community negotiations or legislation. We should have full and suitably timed debates.

Mr. Warren: I am grateful to the hon. Member for referring to our report. However, I assure him that the report was unanimous, and included the full support of a member of the Liberal Democrats.

Sir Russell Johnston: I was not suggesting that it was not unanimous. As the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye said, the Committee was not divided, but that does not mean to say that that is always the case in Select Committees. If the principle is that it is adequate parliamentary consultation for a Committee to deal with an issue, I do not agree with that principle.

Mr. Warren: indicated assent.

Sir Russell Johnston: Obviously the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye agrees with me about that. We need suitably timed debates that take place well in advance if we are to exert influence on the Minister before negotiations or Council of Ministers meetings.
There is another alternative: that the House should no longer seek to duplicate what is done in the European Parliament, but should leave detailed representations to that body and confine itself to debates on general issues —while of course always retaining the right which any Member or group of Members have of raising specific matters with Ministers. The present position is neither one thing nor the other. There is a pretence of exercising influence without the reality.
However, across the piece, the Community has conducted a good negotiation, and the Committee has produced a good report. I suspect that the replies to this debate will be truncated because of the number of hon. Members who wish to participate. If the Minister cannot answer all my points, I would appreciate it if he would drop me a wee note.
As several hon. Members have said, the arrangements on fish represent an advance in terms of access on what exists under the common fisheries policy at present. However, as the existing CFP agreement relates to estimates of available fish, have those been changed? The previous agreement was based on what could be fished properly and safely on conservation grounds, but is that now to be extended? On what basis is it being carried out?
The hon. Members for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) and for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) referred to policing. If the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow is right—I think he is—there will be two levels of policing in fishing areas. There will be tighter control in Norwegian waters and less tight control elsewhere. That is very unsatisfactory, and the House and the Government, through the Council of Ministers, should do more about Community policing in Community waters.
The Minister referred to exclusion of fish species, and specifically mentioned salmon. Was he referring to wild salmon running in the sea, or did his comments include farmed salmon? The Minister will be aware that there has been a great deal of concern among fish farmers who produce salmon. That is an important industry in my


constituency, especially in Lochaber, where Marine Harvest has just been put up for sale by Unilever. There is much employment in the industry in respect of processing in Fort William and in the farms on the west coast, where there is little alternative employment. The concern related to the blatant dumping of farmed salmon by Norway. There was much negotiation and to-ing and fro-ing about that, and I wonder whether that was affected by the agreement.
Recommendation 4 of the Trade and Industry Committee indicated that the creation of the EEA would provide an opportunity for further progress on discrimination against United Kingdom alcohol, which of course includes Scots whisky and related Scots whisky-based liqueurs. As the Government have said that they hoped that there would be opportunities for further progress, I should like to know what further progress has been achieved.
With regard to recommendation 7, I would like to know the up-to-date position on competitive public procurement. As hon. Members will be aware, our construction industry is currently under-used and could well have competitive opportunities opened up to it.
Recommendation 9 relates to the promotion of direct flights from United Kingdom regional airports, and what the DTI called "innovative fares". That will be most welcome if it happens. However, considering the current war of words between British Airways and Virgin Airways, and recalling the fate of Mr. Laker, who certainly went in for innovative fares, I confess to being somewhat sceptical about that. Perhaps the fact that Lord King went into a huff and stopped paying money to the Conservative party might give the Government a freer hand—who knows?
Finally, I do not believe that it is that helpful for the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye to make abusive remarks about the European Parliament, satisfying though that might be. It is always very satisfying to make abusive remarks, but the European Parliament was simply defending the position of the court, which EFTA sought to circumvent. It is not unreasonable that the Parliament should wish to be assured that the new arrangements will make the position of the courts secure.
In response to the right hon. Member for Llanelli, the court is in reality a federal court. In reaching the new agreement, I hope that there has been contact between the institutions—the Commission and the Council—and the court so that there will be no delay. I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Gateshead, East, that that would be most undesirable. I hope that the European Parliament will not hesitate about ratification.

Mr. Butterfill: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, and I am sure that that is the technical position that the European Parliament has taken. However, in practice, surely it did not like the idea of a separate court with enhanced jurisdiction over a wider area. Surely it wanted to reinforce the position of the total competence over all Community matters of the European Court of Justice. That was a narrow-minded outlook, in view of the magnitude of the events that it was being asked to consider.

Sir Russell Johnston: I agree entirely with the definition that the hon. Member has spelt out. However, I do not

agree that that was a small-minded approach. I do not see the point of having two separate courts, given the short life of the agreement between today and the eventual adhesion of most of the members involved in it, with the possible exception of Iceland and, later, Norway.
In conclusion I entirely agree that this is a great step forward for all Europe. It was slow in coming, but it is all the more welcome for that.

Rev. Ian Paisley: There was a time when we were told that none of the EFTA countries would survive the Common Market. In fact, when this country had the opportunity of having a referendum, we were told that it would be the demise of those countries. One has only to look at the progress that EFTA has made, its balance sheet, and the eagerness of the EC now to make peace with it to realise that the prophets who prophesied doom were false prophets and that their prophecy was entirely wrong. We need to face up to that fact. It would be interesting to read the speeches of right hon. and hon. Members who were prepared at that time to read an obituary notice to EFTA and all its deeds. But EFTA still exists.
The widening of the European Community is to the good. I should rather see the EC widened than deepened, and I should like to see the possibility of it being a real European Community in which the whole of Europe is included. I am not arguing for federalism—everybody knows my views—but I am arguing for a unity amidst the diversity, and I am also urging for that interdependence which does not destroy independence. That is the way in which Europe should develop.
The new cohesion fund has the same objective as the Maastricht cohesion fund—to help people in the less-favoured areas of the Community who need to be cushioned because of progress made toward more prosperity in the more prosperous parts of the European Community. One would have thought that the same ground rules would adhere to this cohesion fund and the Maastricht cohesion fund, but they do not. This cohesion fund seems to take into consideration objective 1 areas of the EC. The Maastricht fund does not do that. For example, Wales, which is an objective 2 area, is completely left out. I should have thought that all parts of the European Community which are to be hit, and hit hard economically by what is going on in Europe, should be included in the cohesion fund.
I am glad that Northern Ireland, the only United Kingdom objective 1 area in the Community, is included. However, I do not think that other parts of the United Kingdom which are equally entitled to help should have been excluded. However, in the Maastricht deal, Northern Ireland alone is an objective 1 area and it is excluded. Three Northern Ireland Members of the European Parliament met the Prime Minister and drew his attention to that subject. He has argued that the criterion is different, that we are dealing with the United Kingdom as a whole and that, therefore, the objective 1 argument does not come into it.
I do not know how one can have two agreements, one arguing on one set of principles and the other arguing on another set. If the objective of the European Community is to be achieved, objective 1 and 2 areas in the United Kingdom should be included. I trust that, even now, the


Government will have second thoughts on this matter and I hope that the Minister will spell out exactly what the cohesion fund under this agreement will be in comparison with the cohesion fund under the Maastricht agreement.
The other matter which I should like the Minister to develop relates to fish. We are not getting the full story on fish. The measure deals with cod. I am not suggesting that the Minister is acting the cod, but someone is certainly not telling us the full facts. How much will United Kingdom fishermen benefit? May they have a firm figure?
I congratulate the Minister on the good document— one can read it. One cannot read the other documents that we are to discuss later. Perhaps it is another conspiracy of the Government to keep us from reading them. How can one read such documents? One cannot make them out. Even when I went back and said, "Give me another copy," the second one was almost as bad as the first. If I came from Aberdeen instead of Ballymena, I would go back even for a third copy that I could read.
The document tells us that the EC will have greater access to fishing grounds. It states:
The EC share of the total allowable catch for North Norway cod will increase from 2.14 per cent. to 2·9 per cent.
It is said that we will do very well out of that because of the
two-thirds of the total.
Will the Minister tell us what the total is and what the term "two-thirds of the total" really means? The document goes on to refer to France and Germany and states:
Norway will also grant the EC separate fixed quantities of cod to be allocated to Spain, Portugal and possibly Ireland".
Those countries never fish in those fishing grounds. We are told that that does not alter the treaty, but the document is making a change in what was tightly negotiated by all those countries which had an interest in fishing and which were attempting to safeguard their fishing grounds. We now have a new fishing arrangement that includes Spain, Portugal and possibly Ireland.
Ireland is mentioned in the paper as the Republic of Ireland. How does the Republic of Ireland come into it? The paper says "possibly Ireland". Perhaps Ireland is excluded. Knowing the Republic of Ireland, I know that, if there is anything going for nothing, it will be in on it, all right. I should have thought that it would be in on this deal.
We need to know what will happen to those fishing grounds. Why does this agreement interfere with already agreed principles on fishing? Is it because Spain and Portugal opposed the treaty and that they had to be bought off? Is this the way that they were bought off? The Minister should tell us the truth. Is there a real benefit to our fishermen? If there is, I welcome it, because we in the United Kingdom have had a raw deal on fishing.
One of the things that we need to tell Europe over and again is that there would be no large fishing grounds but for the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom has given liberally to Europe. We are often told that the British are little Englanders, but that is certainly not the case in respect of fishing, because we have given liberally to establish a common fishing policy. I ask the Minister to tell us exactly how much we are to benefit. The document states:
The Agreement can be expected to afford financial benefit to the UK by virtue of the increased opportunities for UK business as described above. Northern Ireland will be a beneficiary of the EFTA cohesion fund.

Of course I welcome that, but other parts of the United Kingdom which suffer unemployment and an economic plight such as that of Northern Ireland should also be included in that cohesion fund.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) said that years ago the EFTA countries were reluctant to associate with the European Community. I remind him that Norway voted against membership of the European Economic Community in the referendum because of the understandable fears of many Norwegians, particularly in fishing communities in the north of Norway, about the common fisheries policy. There is no doubt that attitudes have changed but there was a deep fear about the CFP and open access to northern Norwegian waters.
I see that the Minister is away for the moment. I welcome the agreement, but some elements of it give rise to some concern. In my brief speech I wish to ask some questions which could perhaps be relayed to the Minister.
My first question is about the free movement of persons. Paragraph 11 of the explanatory memorandum published by the Department of Trade and Industry says:
The Agreement prohibits discrimination between EC and EFTA nationals in respect of employment".
The Minister spoke about self-employment and the creation of businesses. But the same paragraph also says:
this embraces the right to accept offers of employment actually made, to stay in an EC or EFTA country for that purpose and to remain there afterwards.
I ask the question that I asked earlier: what is the position of immigrant workers long domiciled in European Community countries? I refer, for example, to the North African immigrant workers in France or those known as gastarbeiter in Germany? It seems that the EC countries have reached some sort of tacit agreement about such European Community residents. By that, I mean that such people will be confined to the countries in which they reside now.
We are talking about several millions of people. Tacitly or otherwise, the European Community has affixed to those people second class-status as citizens. I do not believe that they will be allowed to move around the 12 EC countries, let alone the EFTA countries. I would like an answer to that critical point. We talked about the problems of immigration into the European Community, but we also have a serious problem of migration of people such as I have described, many of whom have lived for years and years in, say, France or Germany. They seem to have second-class status as citizens.
I promised to be brief, but I wish to ask some questions about fishing. I listened intently to the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston), who is knowledgeable on the subject—as, of course, he needs to be—and to the hon. Member for Antrim, North. I agree with the Minister that the agreement will benefit some of our distant water trawlers with regard to north Norway cod.
I should perhaps declare an interest here. I am not a fisherman myself, but I have a brother who is the mate of a big freezer trawler. He and his comrades will undoubtedly benefit from the agreement because that trawler is one of the few which has the capability to fish in such dangerous waters. For reasons of safety, not all the trawlers that one sees in Ulster or the Republic of Ireland


should go out to those dangerous grounds. The same holds true for Icelandic waters, which are equally dangerous for small vessels.
The Minister mentioned a figure of 6,000 tonnes for the amount of cod coming to United Kingdom fishermen. The hon. Member for Antrim, North asked the Minister to give us a definitive figure. I should like the same information. The information that I have been given is that the figure for 1993 is 1,600 tonnes. Is the latter figure the increase in the amount that our fishermen will be able to catch or is it the total catch figure for 1993? I know that it is not the Minister's responsibility, but the responsibility of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries in Scotland. Does the figure refer to fish fillets or to whole fish as it comes over the side of the trawler? There is an important difference.
Paragraph 25 of the Minister's explanatory memorandum says:
Iceland will provide a small additional quantity of fish, the allocation of which is still to be determined.
Did I hear the Minister aright? Did he mention red fish when he talked about the unknown Icelandic allocation? If that is the case, I wonder whether perhaps the United Kingdom and Germany could do a swap of allocations of red fish and Norway cod. Traditionally, United Kingdom trawlers do not fish for red fish. Would there be any chance of an agreement between Germany and the United Kingdom?
Despite the Minister's eminently reasonable comments about cohesion in relation to access for Spanish vessels to fishing grounds, I still believe that to give Spanish and Portuguese vessels access to grounds that they have never fished before bodes ill for the mid-term review of the common fisheries policy. There is no doubt that the Spanish, with their huge, over-large fleet, will seek access to United Kingdom grounds, from which at present they are rightly and properly excluded. That exclusion must remain. Now that the Spanish have won a significant concession on grounds that are not traditional to them, they will be heartened about their bargaining position in the mid-term review of the CFP. If the common agricultural policy is important, especially to Conservative Members, I can tell the House that the CFP is very important to our fishing communities in Scotland and, of course, elsewhere.
I am worried about the agreement which allows Spanish vessels to fish in new waters, because it will strengthen the position of the Spanish when they come to negotiate the mid-term review. We are almost upon it—it is literally months away. Now that they have the agreement to fish, perhaps in Icelandic waters and certainly in Norwegian waters, they will say that the derogation given to the United Kingdom protecting our inshore waters should be examined.
By the agreement, the United Kingdom is stirring up problems for our fishing industry in the mid-term review. I am aware that it is not the responsibility of the Minister, but it is the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government and he is the ministerial representative of the Front Bench now. We are heading into danger.

Mr. Butterfill: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is possible to take the reverse view? The very fact that the

Norwegians have been prepared to grant access will relieve some of the pressure on us to grant access in the review. It is entirely helpful that the EFTA countries are prepared, through the cohesion fund and fisheries extensions, to take some of the burden of introducing a level of convergence between the economies of the Community. The principal Spanish argument is an economic one. Spain says that it needs economic assistance. Whether that comes through the extension of fishing areas or other economic assistance is unimportant: the important principle is that the wealthier northern countries are giving more assistance to the poorer southern countries.

Dr. Godman: I am sure that the fact that the European Fisheries Commissioner, Mr. Marin, is Spanish has no bearing on what has happened. I trust the man that far. The Spanish will not catch much fish off northern Norway, but they have achieved a breakthrough in the negotiations between the European Community and third countries in terms of access to the waters of those third countries. That breakthrough is important to the Spanish Government and their negotiators, as will be seen when we come to the mid-term review.
Everywhere, there are far too many fishermen chasing too few fish. We all know that, and we are arguing for a decommissioning scheme for our fleet, which is too big for the stocks upon which it exists. The Spanish must face up to the same problems. They must halve their distant water fleet instead of coming into our waters.
Policing of waters has already been mentioned. Scottish and English fishermen going into northern Norwegian waters to fish tell us that the policing is much tougher than anything that they encounter in the European Community. The Norwegian coastguard knows exactly where every foreign vessel is fishing. Boardings are frequent and the penalties for infringement of rules are savage. Licences are taken away and huge financial penalties are inflicted on miscreants. That has always been the case in Norwegian and Icelandic waters. The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber is right: we are talking about two systems of policing.
I hope that I do not sound too chauvinistic when I say that the Spanish are among the worst when it comes to breaking rules on the catching of fish, not just in our waters but in Irish waters. They have a shocking record, but they will come adrift in Norwegian waters if they try such games with the Norwegian coastguard.
The Minister spoke about red fish, and I should like to know the precise figures on northern Norway cod. Paragraph 33 of the explanatory memorandum refers to the creation of
An EEA Joint Parliamentary Committee, composed of MEPs and EFTA parliamentarians".
Was any thought given to placing on that committee of Members of Parliament from the 12 national legislatures of the European Community? If the purpose of that committee is to promote mutual understanding through dialogue and debate, I should have thought that Members of Parliament from EFTA countries would benefit enormously from meeting fellow Members of Parliament as we are the ones in the parliamentary front line when matters of this kind are debated.
I hope that, as this relationship develops, Iceland and Norway will give up the barbarous activity of whaling. They do not need to catch whales—they are both affluent north Atlantic countries—and I hope that, as a humane


gesture, they will renounce whaling altogether. Such a decision would be welcomed throughout the other 17 countries.
I hope that the restrictions on the dumping of Norwegian farmed salmon will be maintained. I seek an assurance from the Minister on this because dumping of such salmon has caused serious problems to our communities, which are largely dependent on the still young industry of sea fish farming. Although I have some reservations about the agreement, I think that in general it is a fine thing.

Mr. David Howell: There can be no doubt that this is an important day for the changing shape of Europe, with the creation of a gigantic single market with a gross national product of £4,000 billion. It is much the world's largest single free trade area, being bigger than Canada and the United States together, and even when those two countries are joined with Mexico. Clearly, this change should be unreservedly welcomed as an advance in free trade which will bring prosperity to all peoples, provided that the lawyers and the European Parliament allow that to happen.
I must confess some sympathy with the comments made by the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) about the workings of the European Court of Justice and its tendency always to find in favour of the treaty and the union in its most narrow sense. No doubt we shall come to those matters when the House debates the ratification of the Maastricht accords, particularly in the light of the subsidiarity item, item 3b in the draft Maastricht treaty. Presumably the judicial figures in the European Court of Justice will have to take account of that in the future.
In the meantime, we have this fabulous area of free trade, which we must strongly welcome and support. I have three quick points to make about it. First, this is all very temporary. We are looking at an arrangement that, almost before it comes into being, will be out of date and irrelevant, for the simple reason that several of the countries involved in it want to move on, as rapidly as possible, to full membership of the European Community. Austria and Sweden already have their applications in and hope that they will be under discussion as from June this year. Finland is reaching the decision that it wants to join, on certain terms. Switzerland will have a referendum in September, and I think that it will want to join, as will Norway.
The whole idea that the European economic agreement, creating economic space, would provide a new arrangement that would satisfy the EFTA countries has backfired. Far from satisfying them, it has disturbed the relationship that they had with the Community before and has led to the strong view that they must have membership. That is what is coming and, inevitably, this will lead to a pattern that is entirely different from the one that we are discussing today.
Secondly, what we are looking at today is part of the enlargement process that is about to sweep forward and will include not merely the five EFTA countries but the eastern European troika whose association agreements the House will discuss later, and perhaps the three Baltic states. Malta and Cyprus are also on the list, with Turkey at the end of it. There are also the new states of Slovenia

and Croatia, and heaven knows what other states will emerge out of the Balkan stew. All may want to become full members of the European Community.
The European economic agreement is just the first step in the gigantic drama of enlargement of the European union. We still speak of the European Community but, from the moment of ratification of the Maastricht document by all Parliaments, we shall have something which is quite different and which is moving in a different direction—the European union of the 1990s.
My third point relates to some remarks made by the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) who spoke clearly and comprehensibly from the Opposition Front Bench about the changing nature of the Community institution. She is right to say that this step, and even more the further steps that follow inevitably from it through enlargement, are already changing the structure, character and nature of the European Community arrangements and the traditional or classic Community of which we have been a member for some years and which began in 1957, before our membership, with the original Six, under the aegis of the treaty of Rome.
We are now seeing the beginning of a huge change in the institutional structure. The document that we are discussing proposes that the 19 members should operate in a system that will give the new "Eftans" some kind of observer status, and a part-time relationship with parts of the Community structure and parts of the new union structure. It is difficult to see how that will work. We need only consider the problems—a positive tower of Babel— that will result from translation and interpretation requirements.
All that, however, is just another element of change in a European union that is already changing before our very eyes. What emerged at Maastricht—we shall discuss that further—was not just a system involving the Community, the old federal bit of Europe, but a system involving the intergovernmental or confederal bit in balance or alongside it: the pillars of common foreign security policy, interior policy, justice policy and so on. The EFTA countries will be associated with those pillars in a mild way through the agreement, and will want to be fully associated with them when they seek full membership of the Community, as they will do over the next two or three years.
I welcome what has taken place, and congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the work that he has done in setting up such a gigantic free trade structure. We as a House of Commons, however, should realise that we are viewing what is merely a passing scene —a brief photo-shot of European development. Everything will change radically; soon, we shall be debating the development of a European union totally unlike the Community that we have known in the past and institutionally different from that Community. What we are debating this evening represents only one step in that direction.

Mr. Derek Enright: It is most unsatisfactory that we should have to take part in such a truncated debate on a very practical and important matter within the European Community. It is particularly unsatisfactory for those who must speak at the tail end of the debate.


Speakers constrained by the time limit, as was the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), find it impossible to develop points that I consider important.
It is an extraordinary experience for me to congratulate the Government twice in one afternoon: first, on apologising to Commissioner Millan and putting right the whole RECHAR business; secondly—without reservation —on the EFTA achievement. A very good job has been done, which will benefit both the Community and the EFTA countries. I feel that the Commission's officials should be congratulated as well; we tend to forget that they have been working on this for a very long time.
Let me issue a warning. It seems to me, from what I have read and from talking to continental colleagues, that some member countries wish to postpone full membership. As has been mentioned, Austria and Sweden have already applied for full membership, and it is certain that Finland will do so in the next few weeks. We know, however, that some member countries wish to block that development. I hope that the Minister will assure us that the Government are eager for EFTA countries to gain full membership as and when they apply.
I found the statements by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) quite extraordinary. I first heard him speak on Europe in 1979, when we were together in the European Parliament. It struck me then that the hon. Gentleman had an imperfect grasp of what the Community was about, and I am sorry to note that he has regressed further since coming to the House.
Is it not clear that the EFTA countries—far from being satisfied with their current status, and far from considering themselves self-sufficient—seek the Community's help on two grounds? First, they wish to improve their own prosperity; secondly, there is a certain idealism involved in their application for full membership. That certainly did not apply in the 1970s.
May I advance a small defence of the European Parliament, in relation to its dealings with the European Court of Justice? During the negotiating process, there was considerable dispute about what legal rights were contained in the treaty, and whether they could be put in place while still fulfilling the Community's rules. The Parliament, very properly, placed them before the Court of Justice, which—far from behaving in the way described by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) —responded very positively, as anyone can see who reads the whole judgment.
The Court gave certain advice about how the treaty could be changed so as to fulfil the obligations that exist as a result of the various treaties that make up the Community. All that the Parliament is doing now is announcing a "holding position": it is saying, "Let us consult the Court of Justice to make sure that everything is right." Both Conservative and Labour MEPs, and people from all the countries concerned, have strongly backed the negotiations. The odd rogue elephant on either side has bucked them, but, on the whole, they have fought very hard for those negotiations. To suggest that MEPs are being obstructive is nonsense, and a failure fully to understand the proper custodial duties they have.
Much has been said this evening about eastern and central Europe, and the possible acceptance of those countries into full membership. I urge caution: it seems to

me that merging central and eastern Europe with the west has become very much the flavour of the month, but that no practical thought has been devoted to how the process should take place.
For instance, it is no good the Government saying to the Community—as they have said—"We must give all possible assistance to eastern Europe's move towards democracy and its attempts to reform its economies," and then saying, "But, Mr. Commissioner"—or "Mr. Delors", perhaps—"we will not let you spend any money on it." That, in effect, is what the Government did, and that is what is being attacked now. That is nonsense: either practical assistance is to be given to eastern Europe or it is not. The Government really should make up their mind.
With the advent of EFTA countries to the European Community, the social chapter will clearly become much more important, because it is an important part of their institutions. Where do the Government stand in that regard? How did they talk to those countries? What negotiating stance will the Government take when those countries are entering the Community, and—eventually —pushing for what the other 11 are already demanding?
While we are talking about cohesion, let me say that I have great sympathy for Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and all parts of the Community that have problems. We should remember, however, that the northern regions of England have the same problems; but, because we are not put together—although we have a sense of cohesion—we do not benefit from the cohesion funds. We have only recently begun to benefit from RECHAR, and we hope that that money will arrive very soon.
I must leave the Minister time to reply, but there has been no chance in this short debate to discuss external affairs. The relationship between the ACP—African, Caribbean and Pacific—countries and the EFTA countries is important.
The European Community has fishing agreements with third countries, particularly in Africa, where it has agreements with Senegal, Guinea-Bissau and a number of others. Has consideration been given to those African countries? It has not been mentioned in any document that I have seen, but are any EFTA countries asking for entry into such agreements?
The Government, in a first, faltering step, have done a very good job, and I congratulate them on it.

Mr. Barry Porter: I, too, shall be brief. I add my voice to that of the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) as I, too, want to know what European unity means in the context of the treaty and, in common with my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) I want to know about the moving panorama. It has taken a long time to reach this stage, with more countries wishing to become part of the Community or to have some relationship with it. In the meantime, the world is changing around us.
If we are to join the European railway train, I have two questions for the Minister. First, where is the train going? If I get on a train at Euston, I would like it to go to Liverpool. Otherwise, I have made a mistake and I end up somewhere else. Generally, I do not get that wrong. If I get on a train for European unity, where do I and the United Kingdom think that it will go?
I travelled with the Select Committee on Trade and Industry to the EFTA countries, and they had some idea of where they wanted to go. Business men, bankers and financiers all wanted to join the Community, but there was little mention of idealism. They realised, however, that there was a huge market that would be beneficial to their importers and exporters. That is why they wished to join.
I refuse to be stampeded by people to whom the word "Europe" involves almost a political orgasm. That cannot be right. Europe is or will have to be something, but we do not yet know what. If we were in a station waiting room, it would be helpful if all the people waiting for the train decided where they wanted to go and if they wanted to go together. If they want to go to the same place, all well and good. If they do not, let them make some other arrangements.
I make no pretensions to be president of Mensa, but I can read the odd document. I become dubious about things if they cause 57 questions to be asked of the Minister—I gave up counting after that. Perhaps the Minister will give his own brand of reply. Let us not dwell in a fantasy land, because, as Humpty Dumpty said in "Through the Looking-Glass",
When I use a word … it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.
I am getting off that train for the moment.

Mr. Enright: To have an orgasm.

Mr. Ian Taylor: I shall not follow up that invitation while I am in the Chamber.
I, too, welcome this historic agreement, which has been negotiated over 20 months with great skill, patience and no few difficulties. It represents a great achievement if one considers that 380 million people will be part of a European free trade economic area. I am interested in this issue because, between 1969 and 1970, I was chairman of the European Union of Christian Democratic and Conservative Students, which covered the then EC and EFTA countries. I particularly remember that many of the countries that are now involved in this agreement were very concerned about the European Community because of their neutrality.
Times have changed. The Swedish Government have almost officially dropped neutrality and Austria does not talk about neutrality or its treaty obligations, because of its relationship with the Soviet Union. The changes right across Europe, from the Atlantic to the Urals, have led to a further dramatic impact, because countries such as Sweden, Finland and Austria feel that they no longer have to pay lip service to their position as neutral powers.
I was delighted that the agreement made its final leap forward under the Portuguese presidency of the EC. Portugal was the last member of EFTA to join the EC. It therefore understood the interests of its more recent partners. The agreement underlines the vitality of the European Community as a series of institutions. Let us not evade that fact. It is an agreement whereby EFTA countries have entered into a series of complex negotiations and accepted the "Acquis Communautaire" and the regulations in the areas in which the agreement has been formed, which were agreed by members of the Community—not them.
They have also accepted a remarkable series of commitments to be developed by the Community. They

have done that not just because they want to have access to an enlarged free trade area—important though that is —but because they understand why they wish to be part of the political union which the European Community represents. As Carl Bildt, the Conservative Prime Minister of Sweden says:
Now we are heading full speed to the EC.
EFTA members understand that it is important to be part of the most vibrant political bloc in the world today. What sort of Community will it be if EFTA members join, as I hope that they will be able to do quickly?
There are important questions that we shall have a chance to debate in the House—certainly the British Government will have a chance to consider them in more detail during our presidency of the Community, starting on 1 July. How will the enlarged Community cope with subsidiarity? How will institutions be streamlined? Up to 19 countries could be trying to make decisions at once.
For example, if all the countries made opening statements to the council of Ministers, it would take more than three hours before they could commence the meeting. That is implausible. There would be enormous complications for the European Parliament, given the number of extra nations and their delegates. There would be great difficulties if the Commission were expanded beyond its current base. Those matters must be tackled quickly. Obviously, they will be tackled in ways which mean that certain concessions must be made by nation states. We must think carefully about what we would like those concessions to be.
This country is at the forefront of those wanting the Community to be widened. As I have said before—I repeat it now, because it is essential to appreciate this point—widening is not necessarily a way of avoiding deepening, closer integration. Widening will involve deepening. We must ensure that we understand clearly what the process entails and that we appreciate the difficulties. In the course of pursuing a policy to widen the Community, we must be prepared to accept deepening integration.
There are 13 official languages, giving 156 combinations for translation. It is clear that the broadened Community could grind to a halt. As the House knows, I am a good European and I obviously expect the Community to make the most sensible decision and to adopt English as its sole language. However, Scottish accents will be encouraged.
Institutional change is inevitable. We should think carefully about what that should be. As soon as possible we should welcome into the great Community those members of EFTA that have signed the European economic area agreement. When they become part of the Community, the Community and free trade will be strengthened, there will be a decline in the protectionist attitudes present in certain parts of the Community and the European union will be made much stronger.

Ms. Quin: I shall be brief, because I had an opportunity to raise a good many issues in my opening speech and I am sure that the Minister is waiting eagerly to answer in full the many questions that have been addressed to him.
The Minister said that the debate was timely. I somewhat disagree with that. Indeed, following the comments made by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston), I feel that we are being presented with an agreement that is virtually complete,


and that it would have been helpful to have a wider and perhaps longer discussion at an early stage in the proceedings. None the less, many useful points have been made during the debate and I hope that the Minister will give a full response.
Reference has been made to the legal considerations and the views of the European Court and the European Parliament. My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) took me to task slightly because he felt that I was downgrading some of the legal aspects of the case. I did not intend to do so. I realise their importance, but I also believe that the vital political and economic considerations that the agreement represents should not be overlooked. That was the danger to which I referred.
I am not surprised that many hon. Members spoke about their respective regions and the issues and industries in their parts of the United Kingdom; nor am I surprised that some hon. Members feel that their regions have been short-changed by the agreement and that it would have been a good idea to include the interests of some other regions in the agreement, not simply restricting it to the objective 1 areas in the European Community. In that respect, the Government are the victim of their own propaganda. They have made many dubious claims about economic miracles but they are not prepared to accept the real economic situation of our regions and the country as a whole.
I hope that the Minister will respond to the questions raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) about the gastarbeiter and immigrant workers in the European Community, and the real danger that they may be consigned to second-class status.
I hope also that the Minister will respond to the important question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright), who urged that the EEA agreement should not be used by certain members of the European Community as an excuse to block progress on applications for full membership submitted by certain EFTA countries.
I believe that the United Kingdom can derive considerable benefit from the agreement, but I still have grave doubts about the Government's priorities in Europe and their overall strategies. It is simply not credible for the Prime Minister to say that he wants us to be at the heart of Europe yet, through the double opt-out at Maastricht, do his best to consign us to the periphery.
The hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) said a good deal about trains. In many aspects of European policy, we are in danger of missing the train altogether unless we act to ensure that we do not lose the opportunities available to us. We need to make a success of our membership, both of the Community and of the European economic area, and ensure that our industries and regions can benefit to the full, not just in the Europe of the Twelve but in the wider Europe that we all want to see created.

Mr. Sainsbury: The most important part of this short debate has been the general welcome that has been given to the agreement on the European economic area by both sides of the House. As my right hon. Friend the Member

for Guildford (Mr. Howell) said, it should be unreservedly welcomed. However, reservations, or should I say questions, about the agreement rained down upon me. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter), I too lost count of the number of questions that I was being asked. I must take advantage of the suggestion put by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) that I should send "a wee note", as he so charmingly put it, to those hon. Members whose questions I could not answer in the short time available to me. I shall scour the pages of Hansard to ensure that everyone who has asked a question receives such a wee note.
I agree, at least on one issue, with the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin). It is sensible that the agreement comes into force on 1 January 1993 at the same time as the completion of the single market.
The resolution of the European Parliament was referred to by a number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren) and for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill). The recent amendments made to the agreement take account of the court's opinion last December. I am aware that the European Parliament has made a resolution that a further opinion should be sought. However, as the amendments take account of the court's earlier opinion, it seems to me that no further opinion is necessary and we should be able to go ahead with ratifying the agreement.
Another issue that attracted attention from a number of quarters, including the hon. Members for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) and for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), was fish. That is a particularly difficult and complex issue. As the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow recognised, it is primarily a responsibility for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
I was asked precisely how much extra fish would be available to British fishermen. I am not capable of answering that question, because it depends on the total allowable catch. The good news part of the agreement for United Kingdom fishermen is that the European Community's share will be increased from 2·14 per cent. of the total allowable catch to 2·9 per cent. It is impossible to quantify that precisely, because it is a percentage of the total allowable catch.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye asked about another important matter—public procurement. I assure him and the House that EFTA has agreed to implement fully the directives on public procurement. That is one of the major advantages to be derived from the agreeement.
The right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) and various other hon. Members asked about cohesion. The House will appreciate that reaching an agreement on that part was difficult. Some objective 1 areas in France, Germany and Italy will not be beneficiaries of the cohesion aspects of the agreement. It will be appreciated that, if they are excluded, there will be no question of bringing in objective 2 areas. Indeed, it was only through the Government's strenuous efforts that we had Northern Ireland included as a beneficiary.
I emphasise that the agreement will facilitate EC membership for any EFTA countries that want to join. Through the agreement, they will already have adopted most single market provisions, and negotiations have


covered much of the ground of an accession negotiation. That is a positive aspect of any EFTA country that wants to join.
The issue of the so-called gastarbeiter was raised by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow. The new freedoms of movement for persons and of establishment for individuals and the self-employed apply to nationals of the European Community. Therefore, there is no discrimination. The new freedoms are specifically intended for nationals.

Dr. Godman: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Sainsbury: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way. I shall send him one of the wee notes which I mentioned earlier. Time is limited.
The hon. Member for Gateshead, East spoke about the steel industry. I emphasise that the EEA will broaden the opportunities available to United Kingdom steel makers, and that EFTA steel producers will be brought under the competition and state aid rules governing European Community industry. Some of the export restrictions which have protected the market for scrap and alloys in some EFTA countries to the advantage of their local producers will end. That is another positive point.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South wondered where we are going. I emphasise that the agreement is worth while even if it is, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford suggested, short-term. Not least among the reasons why it is beneficial is that it will help the entry of EFTA countries that seek to join the Community. There is no question of the agreement in any way blocking applications.
The House has recognised that this is an excellent agreement. It is a substantial achievement by the Government. It will provide new opportunities for British business men, bring benefits to consumers, and help in the development of the new Europe.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,
That this House takes note of the proposals described in the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Trade and Industry on 30th December 1991, relating to the draft Agreement on the establishment of a European Economic Area; and supports the Government's view that the Agreement should be entered into by the Community and its Member States subject to agreement on amendments to the draft necessary to deal with incompatibilities between the draft and the Treaty of Rome identified by the Court of Justice in its Opinion 1/91.

Local Government Bill [Lords] (Allocation of Time)

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Local Government Bill [Lords]:—

Committee

1.—

(1) The Standing Committee to which the Bill has been allocated shall report the Bill to the House on 18th February.
(2) Proceedings on the Bill at a sitting of the Standing Committee on that day may continue until Midnight whet her or not the House is adjourned before that time, and if the House is adjourned before those proceedings have been brought to a conclusion the Standing Committee shall report the Bill to the House on 19th February.

Report and Third Reading

2. The proceedings on consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in one allotted day and shall be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock.

Proceedings in Standing Committee

3.—

(1) No Motion shall be made in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a member of the Government, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement from the Member who moves, and from a Member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.
(2) On the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill in the Standing Committee the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.

Order of proceedings

4. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which proceedings in the Standing Committee or on consideration of the Bill are taken, except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Dilatory motions

5. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be made in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Extra time

6. If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) stands over from an earlier day, paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

Private business

7. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.

Conclusion of proceedings

8.—

(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings on the Bill which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time; the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);


(c) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment is moved or Motion is made by a member of the Government; and
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

and on a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
(3) If the allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which under this Order are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

Supplemental orders

9.—

(1) The proceedings on any Motion made by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to those proceedings.
(2) If on the allotted day the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before Ten o'clock, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Saving

10. Nothing in this Order shall—

(a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order; or
(b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

Recommittal

11.—

(1) References in this Order to proceedings on consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of, recommittal.
(2) On the allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

Business Committee and Business Sub-Committee

12. Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) and Standing Order No. 103 (Business sub-committees) shall not apply to this Order.

Interpretation

13. In this Order—
allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the day, provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day, or is set down for consideration on that day;
the Bill" means the Local Government Bill [Lords].
This is an important Bill, which implements parts of the citizens charter. The measures in part I will result in substantial improvements in the quality of local government. Part II initiates a review of the structure of local government in England that has been enthusiastically and widely welcomed. In many parts of the country—certainly in many parts that I have visited—local authorities and others are gearing themselves up for their hearings in front of the Local Government Commission and are anxious to get on with that.
The Government have no wish to curtail reasonable debate in Committees, but there is a clear difference between reasonable debate and filibustering. I have no doubt whatever that the Opposition by their tactics in Committee, have made a deliberate attempt to frustrate proper consideration of the Bill.
The Bill received thorough consideration in the other place—more than 40 hours in total, including almost 20 hours in Committee. The detailed record of the Committee stage so far in this House provides the clearest possible evidence of a blatant attempt by the Labour party to drag out Committee proceedings. [Interruption.]
The House will want to hear the facts. First, the Bill is a relatively short one of only 30 clauses. So far, the Committee has sat for 38 hours in nine sittings, and 30 hours have been spent on just four clauses. It is important to set the Opposition tactics in the context of the originally agreed pattern for Committee proceedings. Originally, six days were agreed for consideration in Committee, and that included five full days. The Government accepted that members of the Committee would want to have the opportunity to attend the debate on the revenue support grant settlement. For this reason, because that debate was postponed, two afternoon sessions were lost, but we readily agreed to add a seventh day to the Committee proceedings to make up for that lost time.
It is self-evident that a single day was adequate for the four clauses on competition. On any reasonable basis of parliamentary scrutiny, that was surely so—and any reasonable Opposition would have accepted that. But clauses 8 and 9 have taken eighteen and a half hours. It is clear that the Opposition embarked on a filibuster in full knowledge of the time allowed for the Committee stage.
The first 7 clauses deal with performance standards of local authorities. The Committee spent more than four hours on clause 1 and more than seven hours on clause 2, using up four morning sittings. Clauses 8 to 11 deal with the extension of compulsory competitive tendering to local authority professional services. The Committee finally reached clause 8 just after 7 pm during the fifth sitting on the afternoon of 6 February. The Committee then spent the next two full days on clauses 8 and 9. That included Tuesday 11 February, when the Committee continued until nearly 5 o'clock on Wednesday morning.
In total, clause 8 took ten and a half hours. Even this very limited progress during the marathon sitting on clause 8 was possible only because my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities moved the closure on two groups of amendments. One group of amendments on clause 8 took over seven hours. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) who is not present in the Chamber, led for the Opposition in the Committee. He opened with a one-hour speech, and had to be brought to order twice.
The hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) spoke for 50 minutes. The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) spoke for a second time and had to brought to order for repetition. The closure was clearly accepted by the Committee Chairman on the basis of lengthy consideration of one group of amendments.

Mr. Ian McCartney: Why does not the Minister tell the whole story about that debate? At the end of it, the Under-Secretary congratulated me on the quality of my submission and my knowledge of the subject under discussion.

Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State is well known for his generosity.
The lengthy debate did not stop with that group of amendments. Still on clause 8, the hon. Member for Brightside spoke for a further 55 minutes, and the hon. Member for Makerfield spoke for a further 1 hour 40 minutes and had to be brought to order.
The performance of Opposition Members was a parody of that well-loved radio programme, "Just a Minute". They used every form of deviation and repetition and plenty of hesitation to waste time. They many times broke the rule about continued use of the same word.
As the House knows, I believe in the sensible management of the legislative programme in the interests of the whole House. Under the timetable motion, there will still be a full day available to consider part II of the Bill. That will provide the same number of hours in Committee on those clauses as was spent on them in another place —that is, eight hours. The timetable motion does not prohibit further debate, but enables the original commitment to be completed.
The House will not be at all surprised to know that we are not prepared to prolong consideration of the Bill indefinitely to accommodate the Opposition's tactics. It is significant that the Committee accelerated its consideration of the Bill as soon as it was known that the timetable motion was being tabled. That shows what was going on. The Opposition's filibuster makes the motion inevitable, and I cannot believe that it comes as any surprise to any Opposition Member. I commend it to the House.

Dr. John Cunningham: The Leader of the House is usually a courteous man, but he forgot to open his speech with a welcome. He should have said, "Welcome to the weekly guillotine debate," as such debates are a weekly occurrence on timetables enforced by the Government. He spoke about repetition and wasting the House's time. He might have acknowledged that the most repetitive business nowadays in the House is discussion of timetable motions imposed by himself.
This is the 36th such timetable motion, but repetition does not make them any more valid. We have noticed that the right hon. Gentleman's speeches of justification get shorter and shorter, to the point where they are almost an apology for what the Government are doing. I assume that before long he will be asking us to take guillotine motions on the nod as though they were matters of no controversy. That would be absolutely wrong, and it could not be more wrong in respect of local government legislation.
In the 13 wasted years of legislation from this Government, the area in which they have made the most horrendous errors in the largest number of Bills has been local government. In almost 60 Acts of Parliament during that time, an average of about five a year, the Government have made the most appalling errors, often steamrollering legislation through the House and coming to regret it bitterly afterwards. Perhaps the most outstanding example of all was the poll tax, but it was only one of many such pieces of legislation. The Government not only guillotined the poll tax in—they guillotined it out as well, thus creating parliamentary political history. Most parties can be forgiven at some stage in their period of office for wanting

to guillotine their manifesto commitments in, but this Government made history by guillotining their manifesto commitment out.
Here we are again, with yet another guillotine debate. As the Leader of the House knows perfectly well, this is not so much about the Government wanting to get their business through, for which the right hon. Gentleman erroneously claimed widespread support, as about the Government's hidden timetable for an election on 9 April. That is what these successive timetable motions are all about. We read about Prime Ministerial jets and contracts ending on 10 April, and we know that the Government are in trouble with their timetable both here and in another place. This motion is all about a general election. It would do the right hon. Gentleman far more credit if he was candid with the House and the country and admitted as much.

Mr. MacGregor: Clearly, I do not know when the general election will be, but I know that we have a substantial programme of legislation in a shortened Parliament. That is the point that I have to take into account.
The hon. Gentleman has referred to the number of timetable motions that I have introduced. As he well knows, I am in favour of timetable motions for all legislation.

Dr. Cunningham: The right hon. Gentleman is not alone in that view, but that view has been put to the Select Committee on Sittings of the House on the basis of agreed procedures agreed within the Standing Orders of the House—not on the basis of the arbitrary and unilateral imposition of the timetables with which the right hon. Gentleman is obliged to proceed.
I suppose that we should exonerate the right hon. Gentleman to some extent as apparently he is an innocent. He knows that something important is happening on 9 April, but it seems that no one has told him what it is. All that he has been told is that he must get the business out of the House in time to accommodate what is to happen on 9 April. If the right hon. Gentleman does not realise that the Opposition and the public can see through that, he is deluding himself.
The right hon. Gentleman should be called not the Lord President but, in the words of Gilbert and Sullivan, the Lord High Executioner as he chops off one debate after another by means of these timetable motions.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the time taken discussing clause 8 in part I. We do not apologise for giving detailed scrutiny to clause 8, which is about competition and goes to the heart of our opposition to what is being proposed.
Talking of wasting time, I remind the Leader of the House that, thanks to the Government continually changing their mind on the timetabling of business in the Chamber, three potential half-days of Committee sittings were lost simply because of changes to the business in this place, which were entirely the fault of the Government's mismanagement and chopping and changing of business.

The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities (Mr. Michael Portillo): Two, actually.

Dr. Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman is right. The third half-day was lost because the Chairman of the Committee unfortunately got stuck in a traffic jam. We do


not hold the Chairman responsible for that, but if the Government had done something over the years about the traffic in London, that half-day might not have been lost. Whichever way we look at the problem, it comes down to the fault of Ministers in the end.
We make no apologies for taking time to scrutinise this legislation, especially in view of the Government's awful record of ineffectual—nay, highly damaging—local government, legislation over the past 13 years. As for the right hon. Gentleman's claim that one more day will be adequate to consider part II, I believe that that includes 18 clauses and four schedules. The House is being asked to agree to allocating one day to that. People outside this place who take an interest in proper scrutiny of legislation and the proper holding to account of the Executive—and even, I dare say, some fair-minded Tories—would say that it was asking for trouble to shove legislation through the House in that way without enough time for proper consideration. We do not accept that one further day is anything like reasonable to deal with part II.
While we object to the way in which business is being pushed through here, outside this House hundreds of thousands of people who have to work in local government and millions of people who depend in one way or another on local government services are very angry about what the Government have done through all this legislation. They have disabled many effective and efficient local authorities the length and breadth of the country, Conservatives as well as Labour. They have damaged the efficient provision of high-quality services by their dogmatic approach to compulsory competitive tendering, and they have prevented the millions of people who rely on local government services from receiving quality and regularity in the services that they require. We shall therefore make sure, so far as it is within our power to do so, that this Bill is given proper consideration.
The Leader of the House talked about the amount of time taken to consider the Bill in another place. That is a matter for their Lordships, but I have never heard any previous Leader of the House recommend that what had happened to legislation in another place should be the determining factor in what happens here. Government always have the right to introduce Bills in another place, but that is no guarantee of an easy passage in the House of Commons—nor should anyone assume that it ever would be.
The Government have made serious errors yet again in these proposals. My hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), who has been speaking for us on these matters, and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) have made that fact clear time and again. My hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham does not serve on the Committee, but he was involved on Second Reading and elsewhere—[interruption.]
The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities mutters from a sedentary position about filibustering. The penultimate time we discussed one of these timetable motions, it was his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science who made the longest speech, as we discovered by checking. The Minister should therefore not be too anxious to mention the length of speeches—[Interruption.]—and he should

certainly not persist in haranguing me from a sedentary position. If he wishes to intervene, I shall be happy to give way to him.
I am merely pointing out that there is plenty of evidence that, when necessary, Ministers are willing to take up more than enough of the time of the House to make their somewhat inadvertent and irrelevant points. As the Leader of the House referred to what is and is not relevant, he should pay a little more attention to the stream of spurious points of order made by his hon. Friends if he is concerned about expediting the business of the House.
Since the Leader of the House made his brief speech without providing any justification for this draconian timetable, and since he sought in no way to convince the House that 18 clauses and four schedules can be adequately scrutinised in one more day of Committee debate, I assume that he thinks, as has happened throughout this Parliament, that the Government can come along with their inbuilt majority and their rubber stamp and authenticate any decision that the Government take, however arbitrary, however unfair and however ill-advised it may be in terms of the proper scrutiny of legislation.
The day is quickly coming when the electors of our country will hold the Leader of the House and his right hon. Friends to account not only for all their local government legislation, the poll tax included, but for their mismanagement of the affairs of this country in general. When people have the chance to vote, this will be yet another nail in the Government's coffin.

Mr. Douglas French: I deeply regret the need for a guillotine on this Bill—indeed, I deeply regret the need for a guillotine on any Bill. It is not the way to achieve high-quality legislation that has been well considered and that has had all the imperfections ironed out of it. I regret in particular the imposition of a guillotine part way through a Bill. In this case, it means that a disproportionate amount of time has been spent on considering the first part of the Bill and that the later stages, in particular part II, which is of great importance, will not now get the attention that they ought to have had and that they clearly merit.
I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever, however, that a guillotine is necessary. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House pointed out, if we had proceeded at the pace at which we were proceeding, and if, in particular, there had been any additional enormously long sittings devoted to one clause, we should have been here until, probably, midsummer before we completed our deliberations. The Committee proceedings on clause 8 represent a classic example of the abuse—if I can put it that way—of the procedures of this House.
I consider that it would be a much more efficient and economical use of the resources of the House if the amount of time to be allocated to a particular Bill were to be decided in advance. The time could then be allocated sensibly. If that is what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House means by having a timetable for each Bill, I very much support his proposal.
I believe, too, that the method of debate employed in some Committees is not very well suited to ensuring that detailed revisions of legislation are made so that one ends up with good and well-considered legislation. The


confrontational approach that is adopted in Committee does not produce the high-quality legislation that the House ought to be capable of producing. In addition to the context in which we are holding the debate, very much broader issues are at stake as to how Committee debates are conducted. When these matters come, as they do from time to time, before the Select Committee on Procedure, I hope that a clear look will be taken at the way that Committee debates are conducted.
It seems to be abundantly obvious from the proceedings in Committee that the Labour party is against the Bill and that it wants to prevent it from making progress. It clearly tried to ensure that the maximum amount of time was devoted to considering part I in order to prevent us from—

Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: I do not know whether my hon. Friend has had the same experience in his constituency as I have had in mine, but the image has been created in my constituency that the Labour party wants the Bill, yet down here the Labour party is doing everything possible to delay it. Has my hon. Friend had that experience?

Mr. French: My hon. Friend takes the exact words out of my mouth. I am coming to precisely that point and, if I am allowed to do so, I intend to enlarge upon it when I reach it.
First, however, let me say that part II, which establishes the local government commission, ought, in my judgment, to be given very careful consideration. However, it is precisely that part of the Bill that has not been given proper consideration, due to the overlong deliberations on part I.
I recall that, during the Second Reading debate on 20 January, the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) opposed the Bill. He said that he was against part I and described part II as "an even greater disappointment". However, it needs to be placed firmly on record that Labour party councillors throughout the country support the Bill, and particularly part II. Many of them are extremely keen to see the establishment of a Local Government Commission. They are also extremely keen to see the establishment of the unitary authorities that will result from the commission's deliberations.
The Labour party will have to make up its mind. Labour party councillors throughout the country want the Local Government Commission, as well as unitary status, where appropriate. Do those councillors therefore support the Opposition Front Bench spokesmen here, and the members of the Committee, who have been instrumental in blocking the Bill?

Mr. Allen McKay: On the point that the hon. Gentleman makes regarding parts I and II. It has always been clear that the controversial part of the Bill relates to competitive tendering when it is compulsory competitive tendering. The lukewarm part of the Bill concerns the Local Government Commission. Would it not have been better, therefore, to introduce two Bills? The first would have provided for the creation of the Local Government Commission and would have gone through virtually on the nod. The second could have been debated for much longer in Committee, due to the controversial issues that it contained. This is only a bare

bones of a Bill. It contains no affirmative procedure. That is why it has taken some time to explore the issues involved.

Mr. French: That is an ingenious solution which, were it to be applied, would get the Labour party off the hook, but that is not what happened. On account of the delays imposed upon the Committee in respect of part I, part II will not receive the consideration that it deserves. To me, that implies that the Labour party is not interested in part II being properly considered. It is not interested in obtaining a good part II. I have already referred to the fact that the hon. Member for Dagenham described part II as "an even greater disappointment" than part I. That does not suggest to me that he is pleased with part II; it implies that he has criticisms to make of it.

Mr. Bryan Gould: indicated assent.

Mr. French: One of the difficulties is that, because we are being denied the opportunity to debate part II, Members of Parliament in all parts of the House will be unable to make those criticisms of part II that they might have felt to be appropriate.

Mr. William O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman makes it appear that the Labour party has denied the Committee time to discuss the next stage of the Bill. If the hon. Gentleman feels that we ought to have more time to discuss part II, he ought to come over here and vote with us against the guillotine motion. If he wants more time for the Bill, he ought to try to persuade his right hon. Friend that the Committee needs more time to discuss part II.

Mr. French: The hon. Gentleman has obviously not been following my argument. Of course we want this part of the Bill to be debated, but so far the debate has done nothing but obstruct its consideration. We cannot continue in the same vein. There comes a point at which, if the Bill is to become law, as it clearly should, we have to make progress. That is why we are debating the guillotine motion. We should not be debating it now if so much time in Committee had not been consumed particularly on clause 8. Important though clause 8 is, it has thrown the Committee's deliberations and what ought to have been the normal timetable for the Committee out of all reasonable proportion. That is why we are in this position.
Labour councillors have expressed sympathy and support for part II of the Bill. Do they support Labour Front-Bench spokesmen in blocking the Bill, which would suggest that they are insincere in their declared support for the Local Government Commission and the prospect of unitary status, or do they genuinely believe in unitary status, as the Bill proposes? If so, will they disown the conduct of the parliamentary Labour party? Which is the genuine and true voice of the Labour party? It is speaking with two voiceson this part of the Bill—

Mr. James Paice: Only two?

Mr. French: There may be more, but I am perfectly content with those two, because they completely contradict each other.
It is incumbent on the Labour party to explain its attitude to the Local Government Commission and the prospect of unitary status. I hope that that question will be put to Labour councillors. Do they support the attitude


adopted by their own party in Parliament to part II of the Bill? If not, will they distance themselves from the conduct of Labour Members?

Mr. Eric Martlew: I am a member of the Committee considering the Bill, but as far as I am aware, the hon. Gentleman has not made any comment on part I. He has no opinion on whether his constituents' pensions are taken away, or on compulsory competitive tendering.

Mr. French: I have views to express about part II. The speeches of Labour Members, including those of the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew), have been so lengthy that, in the interests of progress, Conservative Members have not made long speeches. That underlines the defect in the approach to Committee work.
I believe that part II is at the heart of the Bill. I wish to debate the terms of reference of the Local Government Commission and its composition, which interests Labour Members, but, as matters are proceeding, I shall not have a chance to do so.
The hon. Member for Carlisle will know that I have tabled amendments on the terms of reference for the Local Government Commission as he has signed them. I am grateful for his support and for that of my hon. Friends, but it appears that we shall not have an opportunity to debate them.

Mr. Martlew: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is more vocal tomorrow than he has been at previous- sittings; otherwise, the debate on the amendment that we move together will be very brief.

Mr. French: I have much to say about the amendment, but it would be out of order for me to put tonight the arguments that I intend to put tomorrow. I want the Local Government Commission to consider the position of historic cities, in which the hon. Member for Carlisle has an interest.

Mr. David Clelland: The hon. Gentleman said that he has a lot to say on part II but criticised my hon. Friends for having a lot to say on part I. Why does he think that he has a right to say a lot on part II but that my hon. Friends should be excluded from saying a lot on part I?

Mr. French: It is a matter of relativity. What I describe as "a lot to say" is tiny compared with the interpretation of Labour Members. My interpretation would be a concise and relevant speech of about 10 minutes and no more. I think that I can put my arguments on historic cities in no more than 10 minutes. If I have an opportunity tomorrow, I shall do so.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: The hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) has not had the same opportunity as we have to listen to all these interesting speeches. He plainly does not understand that the difference between a long speech and a speech full of content is quite stark. If he takes the opportunity to read the long speeches, he will not find any content.

Mr. French: I agree with my hon. Friend entirely. Committee Chairmen are long-suffering and do their best in a difficult job, but I believe that they should be more robust in ruling material out of order.

Mr. Martlew: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to criticise the Chairmen of a Committee in that way?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): The hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. French) should not do so. I hope that he will withdraw those comments.

Mr. French: I withdraw that point, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
If members of Committees ensured that their comments were relevant, it would solve much of the problem, because their speeches would not be unduly long, and we could debate more of the Bill.

Mr. Clelland: I thought that I heard the Leader of the House criticising my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), yet, as my hon. Friend pointed out, the Minister congratulated him on the content of his speech.

Mr. French: That is because the Minister is courteous. It would be natural for him to express congratulations, but that does not mean that every part of the speech that the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) made was strictly relevant to the clause that he was addressing.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Labour Members may have missed the point that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary was making in congratulating the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney). I think that my hon. Friend was congratulating the hon. Gentleman on making a boring speech lasting only 50 minutes, rather than his usual boring speech of one hour and 40 minutes.

Mr. French: I am inclined to agree with the sentiments that my hon. Friend expresses.

Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said that the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) had spoken with his customary force and conviction. If the hon. Member for Makerfield was pleased with that comment, he must lack a sense of irony.

Mr. French: The Minister makes the point very well indeed.
I wish to conclude my remarks, because I should not wish to be open to the same criticism as I am making of Labour Members. I have made my point about the conduct of Committees and about the Labour party's deliberate attempts to prevent us from reaching part II of the Bill, which is so important.

Mr. William O'Brien: The motion is against the best interests of local government. If we are to have meaningful local government legislation, Bills such as this should be allowed to proceed with the fullest possible discussion of their clauses.
The hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. French) may think that part I is not important, but Conservative and Labour councillors are concerned about the extension of compulsory competitive tendering under clause 8. In fact, we were told that PA Consultants advised the Government that not all the proposals for the further extension of compulsory competitive tendering were in the best interests of the people who depend on the services. We


dwelt on housing at some length, and questions were raised as to how consultation and compulsory competitive tendering would apply to it.
Primary legislation gives tenants' associations and co-operatives the right to consultation before any changes are made in the management or administration of their housing estates. When we asked for clarification and for the issues to be explained and qualified, we were told that the Minister for Housing and Planning would issue a consultation document in due course. That document should have been published in January, but it has not yet appeared. Therefore, the Committee had to discuss an issue without the evidence necessary for Members to make a decision on the very important issue of changing the management of local authority housing and how that will affect the tenants who depend on such housing for their welfare and quality of life.
Conservative Members such as the hon. Member for Gloucester had no comment to make on the important issue of local authority housing departments. I and many of my colleagues considered it to be a significant matter which should have been discussed in detail in Committee, but we were told that our questions could not be answered because the necessary information was not available. How can Conservative hon. Members expect the Opposition to accept such a situation when discussing clause 8?
If the Leader of the House had any respect for local government, he would join me and my colleagues in saying that the information required for us to make a judgment on clause 8 should have been put before the Committee. I want to register our deepest concern about the fact that the Government are steamrolling through legislation that is against the best interest of the people who depend on local government services.
I again put to the Leader of the House and to Ministers this question: will the tenants' associations and co-operatives have a say in the way in which compulsory competitive tendering will apply to the management of local authority housing services as laid down in primary legislation? Will they be given the opportunity to say whether they are satisfied with the present arrangements?
We have been told that, before the tenants were subject to a change of housing management, a vote should be taken among the tenants and the people who depend on local authority housing services and that, if a majority were against the change, it should not be implemented. Will that apply in the case of compulsory competitive tendering? If the majority of tenants do not want the current arrangements for housing management changed —those arrangements include letting and the reporting and repairs service—will their views be taken into consideration and accepted as laid down under current legislation?
The Leader of the House, who moved the guillotine motion, should be able to answer the simple questions being put by councillors—Labour and Tory—about how the extension of compulsory competitive tendering will apply to managerial services. The hon. Member for Gloucester is fully aware that similar questions were asked about police services but they were not answered. The same was true of questions on architectural services and on the provision and future of library services, so we had to keep pressing Minsters on those important matters under clause 8.
I remind members of the Committee that, when we were requesting information, some Conservative hon. Members

intervened on me and my colleagues because of the importance of the points raised. We had no objection to the interventions. There was an exchange of views across the Committee. That is no reason for the Leader of the House to say that such exchanges should not take place on part II, which is what will happen if the guillotine motion is passed in its present form. There were lengthy discussions on clause 8, because it deals with compulsory competitive tendering and we wanted to ensure that there was clarification so that members of local authorities could read the report of the deliberations and be aware that we had not received information about the extension of compulsory competitive tendering.
When will we receive the response from the Minister for Housing and Planning about the provision of future housing management services for local authority housing departments. When may we have that report? It is clearly important, but we are being denied the information that is necessary to make a balanced judgment on the extension of compulsory competitive tendering.
Another issue which was raised by Labour members of the Committee should be taken into consideration. Consultative documents were issued to local authorities and other interested organisations for them to comment on, but the closing date of the consultation was 31 January 1992 and the Bill was in Committee before that date. As the hon. Member for Gloucester said, members of local authorities have commented on the White Papers and their comments have been submitted to the Department of the Environment, but the Committee has not had the opportunity to consider the results of the consultation. In the interests of democracy, how can Conservative Members say that there should be no time to discuss the Bill further when we are waiting to know exactly what people think about the proposed legislation?
We also mentioned voluntary organisations, which have expressed concern about clauses 8 and 9. Members of the Committee know the views of those organisations and their concern about how compulsory competitive tendering will apply to the services in which they are involved. Will provision be made in the contracts for the extension of compulsory competitive tendering to ensure that the support that voluntary organisations get from local authority departments will continue if private contractors take over the services?
We have raised the issue of the concern expressed by parish and town councils. Although it was promised in the White Paper that there would be provision for discussion on the involvement of parish and town councils, we have been denied that opportunity. Everyone has received letters from organisations, including parish and town councils, expressing disappointment about the fact that the Government have not fulfilled the promise made in the White Paper. We have reasons to question Ministers arid to keep pressing for those questions to be answered.
We also asked why quality and cost should be separate and why there should be double enveloping. There has been no response to the points raised by Labour members of the Committee on those important issues. We are told tonight that, because we pressed those issues so vehemently in the debate on part I and because we took time to ensure that all those matters were put on record, we shall not have the opportunity to do so on part II. That shows the disgraceful way in which the Government are handling the Bill.
I accept that all parts of the Bill, not just part II, are important to local government, and we must have the opportunity to discuss the Bill in full. Democracy as it should operate in this country is being denied to hon. Members tonight. All parties have an interest in local government, but it seems that the interest of Conservative Members is based on the guillotine motion. I do not want such a discussion of local government. The sooner that we allow more involvement for local government and more discussion on the provision of local government services, the better. That will come about on 9 April when there is a general election and a change of Government. We shall then allow people to discuss the important issues which affect the destinies and standard of living of many people. I ask the House to reject the motion.

Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: It is difficult not to believe that the opposition by Labour and Liberal Democrat Members to the timetable motion is synthetic. As hon. Members who were present at the start of the debate will know, the comments of the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) seemed wholly sympathetic to the views of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. The hon. Gentleman seemed to feel that the House should increasingly consider the sensible timetabling of Bills such as the Local Government Bill. The Labour party claims, although its claim may be synthetic, that it wants most of the Bill to be on the statute book. Given the agendas of both main Opposition parties, their opposition to the Bill's twin sister, the Local Government Finance Bill which dealt with the abolition of the poll tax, was just about understandable. However, the substance of their objections—especially Labour's—to that Bill and its twin sister, the Local Government Bill, has never been truly clear.
What Labour wants to replace the poll tax with, other than the catchy but wholly meaningless phrase "fair rates", has never been clear or spelt out. After four or five years of internal wrangling within the Labour party, it is not clear what "fair rates" would mean. It has never been understood inside the House and it is certainly not understood outside the House. On the Local Government Bill, we have had opposition for its own sake. The time taken so far to examine the clauses makes it clear that Labour and the Liberal Democrats have wished to ensure that, given the time left to this Parliament, the Bill will fall.
We are addressing two main issues: first, the citizens charter with its related competitive tender and, secondly, the structural and boundary reforms which, it is said, we all want.

Mr. Gould: Did you write this?

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Yes, as a matter of fact, I did.

Mr. Gould: It is very good.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: That is most kind.

Mr. Irvine Patnick (Lords Commissioner to the Treasury): Give him a signed copy.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I will.
The Labour party has argued, for outside consumption, that it is against not competitive tendering, but

compulsory competitive tendering. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] I am grateful for the sedentary confirmation of that. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment said on Second Reading, replying to the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay), if it is just competitive tendering, the Labour party will not do it, but if it is compulsory competitive tendering, it will have to do it. That is the substance of the debate.

Mr. Clelland: The hon. Gentleman must know that, throughout the years, local government, under the control of whichever political party, has been involved in competitive tendering. It is the compulsory element to which we object. The hon. Gentleman refers to part I. Does he agree that it is part I that is contentious? Does he also agree that we should spend time debating the contentious issue? The Government are not immune to making mistakes on local government legislation, so it should be debated in depth. Does the hon. Gentleman not find it curious that the Government want to rush through the contentious issues to get to the provisions which are not contentious—and on which the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. French) wants to spend a lot of time?

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: It is perfectly true that competitive tendering has been available to local authorities for many years—that is not in dispute—but the Bill seeks to ensure that all people, under whichever local authority they live, have the benefit of competitive tendering. The only way to ensure that is to make it the law that such tendering is compulsory. There are exceptions—the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone has always defended his local authority, perhaps rightly—but the vast majority of Labour authorities simply will not carry out competitive tendering.
To give an example, in the run-up to one of our recent local elections, the Labour party in Nottingham feared that it would lose. In a panic, it quickly did a deal with the cleansing department which saved our local authority no less than £400,000. The only reason why it made the effort to save that money was that it feared that the Conservatives would win the local election and that we might go out to some form of tendering. I submit that that is proof positive that Labour councils do the right thing only when we force them to do so. Compulsory competitive tendering is one of the mechanisms that we must have on the statute book to ensure that everyone gets a fair deal from their local authority.

Mr. Martlew: The hon. Gentleman must have been resting during our long debate in Committee. Did not my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) point out that more than 3,000 tenders had gone out and that there were only 30 at most—1 per cent.—to which the Government had any objection? The legislation is already in place for CCT. The Bill merely tightens the screw, and it is nonsense to pretend otherwise.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but I am not sure quite what point he is making.
The Bill provides that, no matter where they live, local ratepayers or local taxpayers—whatever the means by which the finance is raised—have the benefit of compulsory competitive tendering arrangements, which will ensure that they get a fair deal. It must surely be the duty of the House to ensure that.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: My hon. Friend will no doubt wish to take the opportunity to welcome one of the part-time members of the Committee, the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Bellotti) to the debate.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is returning to his place.

Mr. McCartney: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Not for the first time, the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) has made outrageous remarks about the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Bellotti). The hon. Gentleman is not a member of my party, but I feel that it is vital that remarks made in the House should not denigrate or give a false impression of an hon. Member's conduct in this place. Only a moment ago, the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) accused the hon. Member for Eastbourne of being involved in a filibuster. Now the hon. Member for Harrow, East accuses him of being a part-time member of the Committee. Yet he was neither. Conservative Members are simply engaging in party political activities—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not aware of any matter arising from that that is a matter for the occupant of the Chair.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: You will see, Mr. Deputy Speaker, from the length of that so-called point of order, precisely why Conservative Members have complained about filibustering in Committee. I confess to an admiration for the way in which the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) can pour out a torrent of words for hours on end—for what purpose, I know not. If a medal were to be awarded, it would certainly go to the hon. Member for Makerfield, who has taken over the mantle of an hon. Member who retired from the House a few years ago and who was a genius when it came to filibustering. That accolade now passes to the hon. Member for Makerfield. I merely add that the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Bellotti) is perfectly capable of defending himself, and will no doubt do so when he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
There ought not to be any argument about the fact that the public are entitled to have, and be seen to have, value for their money—and that means compulsory competitive tendering. The long-winded case against CCT has been nothing more than rearguard action to ensure that many —though not all—local authorities can go on in their own sweet way, measuring need and the delivery of service by the old Labour party yardstick of the amount of money that they spend. That seems to be the only yardstick that the Opposition have ever had: if one spends more, it must be a better service—if one spends less, one is cost-cutting. They have never understood value for money.
Let me give an example to which I have referred previously. Our own Labour authority in Nottinghamshire, working from desktops on unchecked and untendered for building work needed in our old people's homes, would rather announce their closure—as it disgracefully did—than obtain outside quotations and find out what it would cost to do the work required. [Interruption.] I will gladly give way to the hon. Member for Makerfield if he wishes me to—he has spent an entire paragraph of my speech rabbiting from the Back Bench.

Mr. McCartney: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not accuse me of filibustering. He rarely speaks in the

House and even when he does, he never speaks up for Nottingham. He always denigrates it and finds excuses to attack Labour councillors. Come 9 April, the people of Nottinghamshire will sort him out.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I do not know whether to laugh or cry. If there is one hon. Member who speaks up for his city, I am he. My one criticism and my one sadness is that the queen of the midlands is oppressed by Labour-controlled city and county councils, and I cannot wait for the day when we get rid of both of them.
A few Labour Members at county hall—there are some honourable men among our Labour councillors, although not the Labour county councillor who is the prospective parliamentary candidate for my constituency—

Mr. Clelland: We did not think that you would like him.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I do not.
Some members at county hall had their consciences pricked over the possible closure of our old people's homes and joined my Conservative colleagues on the county council to vote that outrageous proposal down. Had there been compulsory competitive tendering, that situation might never have arisen. It will certainly not arise in future, because I know from the outside quotations that we have had for the work on the old people's homes that it would come comfortably within the budget that the authority already has available to it. Even the Labour councillors are beginning to feel ashamed at the dreadful pressures that they put on all the residents of those 12 homes while the matter was being debated at county hall in Nottinghamshire.
The Bill began in the other place and was considered in considerable detail there. The Opposition can hardly say, therefore, that they have not had a chance to examine its substance and properly to air their grievances and table amendments. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. French) said, with the time that they have taken so far, they have denied us the opportunity properly to consider part II.
My hon. Friend might well have referred in his excellent speech to the fact that part II refers to the Audit Commission which, strangely, the Labour party wishes to abolish the Audit Commission, although it is one of the greatest protections that the public have. I cannot for the life of me understand the logic of that, but that is another good reason why the Bill must not be allowed to fall through lack of time left in this Parliament.
The main purpose of part II of the Bill is to give us the means by which we can restore or create single-tier unitary authorities wherever it is found appropriate. That is a process that we cannot afford to delay. My constituents, living in one of the finest cities in the country—I say that again for the benefit of the hon. Member for Makerfield—and in the urban areas around our city, which constitutes the real capital of the east midlands, want to throw off the shackles of county hall. They simply do not understand or want councillors from Worksop, Mansfield and Retford making decisions that are rightly for the people of Nottingham—or south Nottinghamshire— whatever the ultimate decision may be.
Of course those northern councillors want to do the best that they can for their towns—that is right and proper —but I submit that they should no longer have the power to make those decisions at the expense of my constituents living within the city of Nottingham. The sooner the Bill


reaches the statute book, the happier my constituents will be, and I believe that that view is held throughout south Nottinghamshire.
Blocking the Bill will cost the Labour party dear. Labour will not get away with the publicity in my locality and bogus amendments to put teeth into the citizens charter. We all know that Labour opposes the charter.
Labour Members will not get away with claiming that they support single-tier authorities. The controlling Labour group at county hall provided funds for county hall to produce self-congratulatory pamphlets with the express purpose of trying to preserve the county's existence. Labour cannot have it both ways. A Labour authority cannot spend public money to maintain its existence while Labour Members of Parliament state in the House that they want single-tier authorities.

Mr. Martlew: The hon. Gentleman must recall that it was a Conservative Government who, in 1972 and 1973, proposed the local government reorganisation that is now being altered. Does the hon. Gentleman not accept any responsibility for that?

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Yes, we got it wrong. Many Conservative Members and Conservatives around the country believed that local government should be reorganised in the early 1970s, but we did not believe that there should be the same solution throughout the country. That is exactly what the present Government have recognised. We cannot claim that everywhere must have precisely the same solution. That is precisely what part II of the Bill addresses. Some areas may continue to have two-tier authorities, if that is right and proper for them and if that is what the local people want, but there is no doubt that a two-tier structure is not the answer in Nottinghamshire. It was wrongly imposed in the early 1970s. The Conservative party has at least had the courage to say that it was wrong, we must put it right and we must not delay further.

Mr. Clelland: If the hon. Gentleman is big enough to admit that the Conservative Government were wrong in 1972 and that they were wrong in respect of the poll tax —another piece of infamous local government legislation —is it not a little unwise of the Government to rush through yet another measure which is also wrong?

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: No, there is no logic in that view. One of the great tragedies in this House is that so few of us have run businesses. When one runs a business, one is aware that one makes mistakes, but one does not dwell on them. If one makes a wrong decision, one simply says, "Stop—cut your losses and move on to something new." I wish that we in politics were more able to admit that something we did a few years ago was wrong and that we should put it right as quickly as we can. There is no shame in that.
One of the problems in politics is that it takes so long for us to admit that we got something wrong. We were wrong to impose a similar structure throughout the country in the 1970s. The Government recognise that, and we are establishing a system which will ensure that we get it right this time.

Mr. Simon Coombs: Is not one of the attractions of the Bill the fact that, by creating the Local

Government Commission, we provide an opportunity for freedom of choice in local areas so that people in different parts of the country can choose different solutions? It is a question not of rushing through a single prescription, but of creating a framework in which choice can be exercised.
While I have the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo)—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Briefly, please.

Mr. Coombs: Of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I wish to raise a point which arises from our discussions. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South has referred to a mistake which he alleges that the Conservative party made in 1972. We have learnt from our mistakes, but the Labour party refuses to learn from its mistakes. Labour is still determined to have regional government and to impose another tier upon it, which will be—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions should be brief. Let us return to the motion before the House.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs). His intervention stands freely and requires no comment from me. I do not disagree with him at all.
The Bill must make progress. I therefore support the timetable motion without reservation.

Mr. Ian McCartney: There seems to be a sense of deja vu on the Conservative Benches. This must be about the 60th motion to curtail debate on a Bill in the past five years, and most of those motions have related to local government matters. On each occasion, the motion has been dictated by political considerations on the Government Benches.
The Government's arrogance in Committee is clear. When hon. Members attempt to debate issues, they are met with silence or with occasional sedentary interventions in the form of caustic remarks from Conservative Members. If, in Committee, Opposition Members did not participate in a debate, the Minister tried to curtail the debate, causing the Committee to progress to the next clause. Opposition Members could not win no matter what happened. If Opposition Members did not wish to participate in a debate, the Government would not initiate one.
That is precisely what happened on 11 February. Without consultation, and of their own volition, the Government decided that the debate would continue not till 10 pm—as had previously been agreed—or to 11 pm, midnight or I am, but until 5 am. However, there was a tacit and clear policy, in that Back-Bench Conservative Members did not participate in the discussions. Therefore, Back-Bench Opposition Members had to shoulder the responsibility of examining the Bill.
When it comes to considering amendments in Committee, Conservative Members are gutless. They have failed to scrutinise the Bill. The hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) has admitted that mistakes were made. That was big of him, but such mistakes would not have been made if amendments had been considered properly in Committee and if Conservative Members had shown any desire to participate in the debates to scrutinise the Bill.
From the Government's point of view, we have an elected dictatorship. Whatever the Secretary of State says goes. If the Government cannot get their legislation through quickly, they can always introduce a guillotine. That is why Conservative Members cannot make a case tonight. So far, we have simply heard a litany of personal attacks on Opposition Members. My hon. Friends and I take it as a badge of pride when Conservative Members try to denigrate our contributions in this place and in Committee. I believe that that shows that we are on the right course.
I do not intend to apologise for referring to safety in the fire service. Why should I apologise for referring to men and women who daily try to save lives? They save the lives of about 700 people a year, and they save another 10,000 people from serious injury. I have been personally attacked in this House for trying to ensure that, when compulsory competitive tendering is introduced in the fire service, it protects equipment and the maintenance of equipment which saves the lives of firefighters and those who are unfortunately involved in fires. If it is being boring to attack the principle by which the Committee operates, then I plead guilty.
We must also consider CCT in the police service and the fact that that service believes that the Government are wrong to force the police service into areas of CCT which will affect security. If it were not for Opposition Members, the professional advice that the Government have received from the fire service and the police service would never have seen the light of day. Conservative Members object to Opposition Members being able to place on the public record the advice that the Government have received from their professional advisers who say that the Government are wrong. If it were not for Opposition Members, that advice would not have come to light.
Why have the Government failed in Committee to give any public commitment to publish consultants' reports in respect of the legislation? The reason is that the consultants have made it clear to the Government that the way in which they are proceeding with the Bill is a mistake and a serious error in administrative, financial and political terms.
Their arrogance is such, after 13 years in power, that the Government will listen to no one. They will take advice from no one—they will certainly not take advice from Opposition Members. When advice becomes politically embarrassing, they close the debate. That has happened in Committee.
As the debate unfolds, the Government become more and more embarrassed. We are able to produce evidence of the disasters of compulsory competitive tendering in councils, irrespective of political control or region, or whether they are county councils, non-metropolitan councils or metropolitan councils. There have been disasters in terms of the quality of service, the wages and conditions of those who are trapped in compulsory competitive tendering and the pressures being placed on local authorities even when they win a tender. Tenders are won at the cost of the delivery of service. The Government hate the fact that public scrutiny is taking place and they want to close the debate.
The hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. French) made an interesting assertion. He believes that there is a need for Committee procedures to be changed, that this is an intellectual debate and that he is very sorry that it had to take place. The Government have had 13 years to change

procedures and to come up with proposals to ensure the proper consideration of legislation and to protect the rights of Back-Bench Members, of minority groups and of the official Opposition, but they have failed to do so—because it is not in their interests to do so.
The Government are not prepared to have open government or open debate in Committee. They want to protect the system as long as it protects their position. The hon. Member for Gloucester cannot have it both ways. He cannot complain to hon. Members that he will not have sufficient time to take part in the debate on part II of the Bill when he himself has connived, and will connive tonight, at ensuring that there is no proper consideration of it.
What is at stake in the first part of the Bill are two major clauses—clauses 8 and 9—which are at the heart of the proposals. That is why Opposition Members are insisting on a proper debate on those clauses. Unlike the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo), I have read the legislation. I am surprised that, as a Conservative Member, he did not realise that this is an extension of a piece of legislation that has been in operation since 1988.
Compulsory competitive tendering has been in operation since 1988. The legislation is about extending the scope of services and the way in which the Government through the Secretary of State control tendering procedures. That is what we objected to in Committee. Much of clause 8 is enabling legislation. Let us have more information in it. Each time we have asked questions, the relevant Minister has said, "We are still in consultation; we will bring forward statutory instruments on that."
By that sleight of hand—that casual brushing aside of the political debate—in one week the Government protect themselves from proper scrutiny of the legislation. As we saw with the poll tax, with statutory instruments they forced through, without any debate, fundamental changes in the structure of local government. That leads to complete disaster—not only political disaster, but, more important, disaster in the fair operation of local government as an institution and a deliverer of services.

Mr. Clelland: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for enlightening the House on what has been going on in Committee as opposed to the filibustering that we now hear from Conservative Members. Does my hon. Friend agree that it may be a good policy on our part to send copies of the Committee's proceedings to fire authorities, police authorities and local councils in areas represented by Conservative Members who serve on the Committee? Those authorities and perhaps the local press in those areas will see the contributions that have been made by my hon. Friends and compare them with those by Conservative Members, which I suspect would not fill one sheet of A4 paper.

Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend has a good idea, but I can put his mind at rest: that is already happening. In my postbag, I have received contributions from people in the Strangers Gallery stating that, if it were not for Opposition Members, their views about the legislation would never have been put.
Professional associations representing architects wrote the Government a detailed paper about the way in which the Government were seriously undermining architects' departments in local authorities. Did the Minister publish


that document? Did the Minister refer to it either on Second Reading or in our debate on clause 8 in Committee? Not a bit of it. It was left to Opposition Members to set out the position of architects and professional advice to the Government.
The same applies to the fire service, the police and local authority associations. On every occasion, the Government failed to take account in proper debate of the views of people outside. That is despite the fact that the Government are introducing legislation which changes large sectors of local authority delivery of services, and the consultation procedure has not been completed.
The Government are passing legislation without asking local authority associations, fire services, police services, voluntary organisations, local authorities, parish councils, or town councils their view on the legislation. The Bill will be law before their views have had an opportunity to be expressed properly unless Opposition Members are given that opportunity during the passage of the Bill.
Have hon. Members ever heard of such a situation? The offer of open government through the citizens charter and the procedure for public comment has ended after the Bill becomes law. That is a sham. The Government have already decided the principles of the Bill. They have no intention of allowing a proper debate on the consequences of it. This is only a bit of window dressing in the run-up to the election. That is what this pernicious guillotine motion is about: the Government are desperately clearing the decks for a general election.
The Government have no advantage in containing the debate upstairs, because each day more and more embarrassing information comes out about their proposals. For example, last Thursday, the Government sought to change clause 9 to allow a calumny about local authorities which, to some extent, was continued by the hon. Member for Nottingham, South: that, over the past three years, local authorities had been cheating in some way in their operation of compulsory competitive tendering and we therefore need a change in the law. They said that they had to do something to get rid of those local authorities' anti-competitive practices, yet in the debate that Conservative Members did not want, the truth was that of more than 3,000 tendering procedures that were investigated, only 30—about 1 per cent.—required any action or proposed action by the Government.
That was the excuse for dramatically changing, without consultation, major sectors of local government services such as housing, architectural services and a host of legal and administrative services—a change of the law based on an outright misrepresentation of the facts. That is why Conservative Members do not like the debate: because we find out the truth. We find out that the Government have nothing more than blind ideology when it comes to the continuation of this piece of legislation.
I now refer to what will happen from tomorrow onwards. Much has been said about the way in which we shall proceed. It would take much to convince me and other hon. Members that the Government are serious about a fundamental review of local goverment other than for political reasons, in the light of the way in which 13 years of Tory attacks on local government have undermined the concept of public service in the United Kingdom.
The Tories' record is not good. When they lost control of metropolitan authorities, they abolished them. When they lost control of Greater London local authorities, they abolished them. The legislation is not about a commission to improve local government services. For Conservative Members, it is a short-term, ideological set-up whereby they will examine county councils in non-metropolitan areas that are controlled by Labour. They are already fingering some local authorities not because they do not provide proper services but because they are controlled by Labour. If the Government cannot win in the ballot box, they abandon the ballot box.

Mr. Rupert Allason: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McCartney: I give way to the hon. Member for MI5.

Mr. Allason: How does the hon. Gentleman square that slightly paranoid view of the reconstruction of local government with the position in counties such as Devon, where a substantial proportion of the local authorities are Conservative-controlled at both district and county level? In Devon, we feel that there is great duplication, especially in the control and supply of services. All we are after is one sensible unitary authority. Surely that is nothing to do with politics but is the desire to provide our constituents and people in individual wards with a sensible, proper service, combined with a sensible, proper system of accountability.

Mr. McCartney: In the light of some of the hon. Gentleman's writings, he is the last one to accuse anyone in the House of being paranoid.

Mr. Allason: I have read the hon. Gentleman's file, and it is all right.

Mr. McCartney: If one were to believe what the Minister, the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) and other Conservative Members on the Committee believe, it would be a pretty boring file.

Mr. Allason: There was an interesting telephone conversation two years ago.

Mr. McCartney: I had an even more interesting one last night, but we will deal with that in a moment.
I would go along with the hon. Gentleman if his record and that of his hon. Friend was one that we could trust. I am sure that, in his time, the hon. Gentleman has deliberately voted with the Government for the abolition of many local authorities. The Opposition want to get rid of the Government's political inclination to tamper only with Labour-controlled local authorities.
I believe in a root-and-branch review of local government services. I believe in unitary authorities. I believe in bringing services down to as local a level as possible to take account of the need to have a financial base and a land base on which to implement strategic policy decisions. So I have no argument with the hon. Gentleman about the concept in principle, but I worry about the political ideology behind the Government's position.
For example, at present the Bill makes no provision for local communities to appeal against decisions by the commission. That is fundamental if one is serious about local decision-making. The commission will be able to


make fundamental changes to a council, abolish it or amend it. Local people will have no procedure by which to appeal against that decision. At least with the present Local Government Boundary Commission there is a procedure for appealing against its decisions. If the Government are serious about local government and consideration by local people, why have not they provided a proper procedure to appeal against a decision to abolish an authority?

Mr. Clelland: Does my hon. Friend also agree that we are right to be worried about the impartiality of the commission because the Secretary of State for the Environment has already pre-empted the commission's decisions by expressing the view that Cleveland and Humberside will be abolished under its recommendations? He said that even before the commission was set up.

Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend is right. Irrespective of one's position and whether a decision is right, it is no job of the Secretary of State, in advance of setting up the commission, to set down as its first term of reference the political abolition of certain local authorities. That is why Opposition Members want to ensure proper scrutiny and create safeguards.
We want to prevent the Government—this Government or any future Government, and whatever their political complexion—from interfering in any way for political considerations in decisions to amend local government boundaries and the local communities served by local units of administration. That is vital. Otherwise, we are going into the business of gerrymandering of local authority communities. Let us be frank: that is what happened to the metropolitan counties, and in my area, we had to live with the consequences.
I represented a metropolitan council area. Our democratic authority was abolished forthwith. Out of it, a series of quangos has been set up. They are unelected, but they have the resources and powers to determine basic services—whether fire, police, transport or waste disposal services. Not a single vote is cast in respect of the decisions of those bodies. They spend millions and millions of pounds. That is the Government's record in reorganisation of local government. I am sure that the hon. Member for Gloucester does not want to say that that record will continue with the local government commission.
One of the Government's serious proposals is that, in making wholesale amendments to unitary authorities, it will be necessary to have many former county facilities controlled by the districts. I want to ensure that, when several district councils are involved in delivering a countywide service, there is some democratic accountability in the provision of services and the development of policy, and that the local community has some say in the way in which money is spent on that service.
So Opposition Members need make no apology for the way in which we have scrutinised the Bill so far.

Mrs. Edwina Currie: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. Is he aware that one of the strongest wills in my area to see the abolition of the county authority and the establishment of a unitary authority is that of the Labour-controlled South Derbyshire district council? It has had enough of decisions being taken on its behalf by idiots a long way away, be they of its party or not.

Mr. McCartney: I have no objection to that. I do not know what the hon. Lady is complaining about. All we are saying is that we want the structure of the commission, its membership and democratic control, the style of membership, and its knowledge of local government to be correct. More important, when the commission comes to decisions, we want local Conservative associations, Liberal and Labour parties, community groups, tenants' groups and so on to have an opportunity to challenge the commission's views or to put alternative views to it.
With all due respect, the 35 wisest men and women in Britain will be on that commission, but they do not know everything about every local community in Britain. Why should they? If South Derbyshire want a unitary authority, I am happy with that. All I am saying is that, when the commission makes its proposals for the area, the people of South Derbyshire should have an opportunity to say whether the proposals are right and fair.
I therefore hope that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) will come into the Lobby with us tonight against the guillotine motion. If it is accepted, the consideration of the Bill that she and I want will never take place. I hope that she will take that into account, and I am sure she will. I am sure that she is not just a hackette for the Government.
I wish to give an example of the value of debate—this is not only my view but that of the Minister. He and I took part in a debate for perhaps 30 minutes at about 3 o'clock in the morning on the de minimis rule, which excludes services up to a value of £100,000 from compulsory competitive tendering. That rule was introduced by the Government in 1988 to protect small district councils. At the end of the debate, the Minister of State said that the only reason that we had been able to sort out a serious problem was the debate that we had had. That is what Opposition Members are about. We want to engage the Government in an appropriate debate about the major issues before the Committee.
Compulsory competitive tendering is not only a contentious issue: it goes to the heart of the principle of delivery of public services in Britain. Unless the delivery of services is subject to proper public scrutiny, even if the Government force the Bill through, the Bill will not be worth a row of beans if in practice it undermines the ability of local authorities to provide services. Is not that the fundamental test when it comes down to it? Irrespective of political ideology, when legislation leaves the House, the test is whether in practice it is better than the legislation that preceded it—whether it will ensure better services, better scrutiny of services and better value for money. The way in which the Government are proceeding means that the Bill will fail on all three counts.
The Government will lose politically, but more importantly, local government will lose. The public who believe in and require the services will be the biggest losers, because the scrutiny in the House does not do justice to the major changes that the Government seek to force on the British public.

Mr. James Paice: Conservative Members have come to recognise the regular hollow protests by the Opposition at the use of the guillotine. What we have seen in this debate, what we saw last week, and what we may see again—I do not know, and


my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will know better than I—is the recognition by the Labour party of what will happen on 9 April, 7 May, or whenever. If there were to be a Labour Government after the general election, they would wish to use guillotines. Their fervent opposition to guillotine motions shows their recognition that they will not, in a few short weeks, be on the Government Benches and able to demand their own guillotines.

Mr. Martlew: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Paice: Not for a minute—I have only just started.
What also proves the hollowness of arguments against guillotine motions is that often the debate on the motion takes time from the debate on amendments. Although that is not the case with this debate, it has often happened with other timetable motions.
Like those of my hon. Friends who have spoken today, I welcome this timetable motion. I believe that every Bill should be timetabled from day 1. That would be far better than introducing a timetable halfway through a Bill. However, the motion had to be introduced tonight, for all the reasons that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House outlined when he detailed the waste of time that we have already had.
The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) urged the Government to come clean and say that this is all part of a campaign to clear the decks before a general election. We are led to believe that the Labour party is looking forward to the general election. The Leader of the Opposition keeps encouraging the Prime Minister to call a general election. The Opposition cannot have it both ways. If they want a general election and believe that the Bill should become law—they are in favour of the part that the Committee has not reached—they should acknowledge that there is no option other than to timetable the remaining stages. The agreement made through the usual channels has come asunder, but what the timetable motion proposes is in line with that agreement—with the one exception that the original agreement did not envisage the Committee sitting until 5 o'clock one morning.

Mr. McCartney: That was the Government's decision.

Mr. Paice: That may be so, but it was still extra time on top of the original agreement about the proceedings of the Bill.

Mr. Don Dixon: What agreement?

Mr. Paice: If the timetable that was agreed through the usual channels—the two Whips Offices—was wrong, why was it agreed in the first place?

Mr. Allen McKay: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Paice: The hon. Gentleman is on record as saying that he is no longer a Whip but only a Back Bencher, so there is no point in giving way to him while I am speaking about the usual channels.
Only on Thursday last did we finish the part of the Bill dealing with competitive tendering, and we have not yet reached the part dealing with the Local Government Commission. Many people would gain if they could stand the boredom of the tedious and long-winded speeches to

which the Committee has listened and which are recorded in Hansard. The Opposition have spent vast amounts of time detailing local government services and experiences of contracts that have gone wrong. They have detailed the odd examples where the service has been below standard or the contract has broke down, and have blamed that on compulsory competitive tendering, but that is not the truth of the matter. The fault lies with the contract that is up for tender. If the documents are properly drawn up, one is able to enforce higher standards and to deal with the problems that may arise.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not speaking to the motion before the House. I hope that he will quickly get back to it.

Mr. Paice: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I take your remonstrations.
The Committee has spent a considerable amount of time-wasting on matters not directly related to the Bill.

Mr. McCartney: The hon. Gentleman is wasting time.

Mr. Paice: I am sure that if I am wasting time you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will call me to order. If we cannot talk about what has gone on in relation to the Bill so far as justification for a timetable motion, I wonder—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot say that many speeches in the Committee did not deal with matters arising from the Bill and then hope to be able to reiterate those debates when the House is considering the guillotine motion.

Mr. Paice: I am not suggesting that they did not arise from the Bill. I am saying that they are examples of the way in which, while debating amendments, Labour Members spent far too long on minor details rather than addressing the issues. They could have said what they wanted in a much shorter time.
We have not yet reached the part of the Bill dealing with the Local Government Commission. Labour Members such as the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) have expressed support in principle for this, and he expressed concern about certain aspects of its structure and accountability. I do not think that there will be much dissent across the Floor of the Committee when we get to this tomorrow because most hon. Members welcome that part of the Bill.
Already, the chief executive of my local authority has phoned me saying, "For goodness sake, you have to get this Bill through before the general election. The Local Government Commission must be set up to look at unitary authorities." I believe that unitary authorities will be the primary means of providing local services, although they will not necessarily be the perfect solution for every part of the country.

Mrs. Currie: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not just the Local Government Commission that is important and urgent, but the compulsory competitive tendering provisions in the first part of the Bill? A small unitary authority will in the future be able to succeed because of CCT. It will not have to be a provider of services because it will be able to use CCT to ensure that it gets high-quality services and good value for money simply by buying in whatever appears to it to be necessary.

Mr. Paice: My hon. Friend is right. There is no need for any local authority to have any service provision within its systems. It should simply be an agency buying in provision from whatever source it thinks best. I see no need for a local authority to have vast, wasted bureaucracies sorting out the provision of services when it should be ensuring that it obtains for the people whom it is elected to serve the most cost-effective way to deliver services and the best value for money. As my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) says, if that means a small authority with only a small nucleus of officials buying in and doing the job, so be it.

Mr. Allason: How does my hon. Friend think that the enabling authorities would be able to cope with providing a service the importance of which was highlighted on last night's Independent Television News? In Birmingham, a local authority is providing a phone-in service enabling people who cannot remember a tune and are annoyed by it to telephone from all over the world. A team of nine NALGO members is permanently available to find out what the tune is.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that we have got the point.

Mr. Paice: No doubt my hon. Friend is asking me a rhetorical question. As he well knows, it should not be the function of any publicly elected body to provide such a service. He has put his finger on another critical aspect of the Bill. He referred to nine NALGO members—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Not enough."] It may not be enough—perhaps the demand for the service is so great that 10 or 12 should have been provided. In the event of a return to the trade union laws of the 1970s, however, those nine members could themselves demand another half-dozen, or even 20.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have made it clear that hon. Members must speak about the motion. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will now address himself to it.

Mr. Paice: I will return to the subject of the Local Government Commission and unitary authorities.
Hon. Members should not fool themselves. They should not assume that the House has been misled into believing that the Local Government Commission legislation could be pushed through in no time. Much of the debate has already taken place in the other place, whose primary function is to act as a scrutinising body. We know that it could not reject the principle—[HoN. MEMBERS: "It is unelected."] It may be unelected, but it contains a cross-section of people of considerable ability, experience and knowledge. Members of the other place possessing those attributes have already been through the Bill, and have examined many of the concerns that have been expressed about the structure of the Local Government Commission.
The timetable motion was inevitable. It probably became inevitable on the occasion of the Committee's second sitting, when it was clear that we would make very slow progress. If the Bill—and, in particular, the part which involves the Local Government Commission—is to become law before the general election, whenever that takes place, it is essential that the motion be passed today.

Mr. Eric Martlew: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate, although I am very sad that we shall not be given an opportunity to scrutinise the Bill properly.
I do not believe that Conservative Members are carrying out the job that they were elected to do. If doing the job properly means having to stay up throughout the night to scrutinise legislation, I am prepared to do that, but Conservative Members appear to tire very easily. Perhaps they are worried about getting back to their constituencies.
If I have to stay up for a long time to debate the living standards of working people—for instance, when the Government are trying to introduce compulsory competitive tendering—I am prepared to do that. I am prepared to argue for as long as it takes that people's wages and holidays should not be cut, and that sick pay and pensions should not be taken away from them. That is what much of our earlier debate was about. There was no filibuster as such; we had a lengthy debate, in which great concern was expressed for working people.
Such concern seems to be expressed only by Opposition Members. Conservative Members do not seem to give a tinker's cuss. They are not bothered about whether their constituents have to take a cut in wages, as long as they can be seen to be going out to the private sector. I could reel off numerous examples, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but you would rule me out of order if I did, because a number of other hon. Members wish to speak. I shall content myself with saying that to suggest that debate should be curtailed because Opposition Members have not taken the Bill seriously is to present a travesty of the truth: we were debating the subjects that matter.
The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) seems happy to leave matters to the other place, as long as he can get to bed early enough. I am not sure that that is what democracy is about. I was elected to debate, even if the hon. Gentleman was not, and I feel sorry for his constituents. He has never made any comment that suggested that he cared very much, and I fear that those constituents have a part-time Member.

Mr. David Bellotti: There are several.

Mr. Martlew: That may be true, but I should be ruled out of order if I said anything else about that.
I was surprised at the way in which the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) admitted that the Government were wrong in 1974 when they reorganised local government. On Second Reading, I tackled the Secretary of State for the Environment about that and I asked him to apologise to the House for the mistakes made as a result of that reorganisation. The right hon. Gentleman merely attacked the Labour party and said that the Conservatives had nothing for which to apologise. However, three Conservative Back Benchers have got up today to admit that mistakes were made.
We want to ensure that such mistakes are not repeated with the next local government reorganisation, which represents an important change. I happen to believe that local government is as important to our democracy as the Chamber. We have a dual role, and the way in which hon. Members denigrate the work of county councils in Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire is hard to take.
The local authorities were established by the Conservative Government and they have had to struggle


with the system as best they can. I served on a county council, after its reorganisation, for 18 years and I have nothing but praise for its Conservative and Labour members for the way in which they struggled to tackle the problems with which they were faced. It was not their fault that the structure was wrong, and it does not become Members of this Chamber to criticise people who have merely attempted to do their best with a flawed system —a system introduced by a Conservative Government.
I am worried about the timetable motion because I understand that tomorrow will mark the end of the Committee stage. There are many important matters that still need to be discussed. I had hoped to move an amendment on annual elections—the Government seem to run away from elections. I had hoped that the Minister would say that the Government were in favour of annual elections to the new authorities.

Mr. Portillo: indicated dissent.

Mr. Martlew: I must assume that the Government are not in favour of annual elections to local authorities.
I am not talking about a unitary authority. The district council in Carlisle has annual elections and on the fourth year the county council holds elections. Therefore within any four years of office there are annual elections as well as European elections and, perhaps, a general election. I am a great believer in democracy and I believe that annual elections keep local authorities on their toes. They ensure that the promises made at election time are kept. I have no doubt that the better authorities are those that are prepared to face their electorate every year.
When the Government introduced the poll tax, they argued that it would make local councils more accountable to their electorate. Therefore, I cannot understand why the Government will not give the electors of certain local authorities the opportunity to go to the polls annually.
I know that such elections are expensive for the political parties and I know that the Conservative party has money problems now because the captains of industry are not making a lot of money.

Mr. McCartney: It is true that the Conservative party is having problems with its fund-raising activities and that is why it has switched its attention to the far east and places such as Hong Kong for donations.

Mr. Martlew: My hon. Friend is right, but I should be ruled out of Order were I to take up that issue. Unlike the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East, I would not seek to disagree with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I accept that financial problems may be caused by having annual elections. I should like to discuss them with the Minister tomorrow, but I fear that that will not be possible. However, we have already had the Minister's answer to my proposal, so perhaps we shall not need to debate the matter tomorrow.
I am also worried that we may not have an opportunity to discuss historic cities. The hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. French), who is no longer in his place, referred briefly to that subject. The problem is that we may not have time to debate the matter fully and I am looking for a positive response from the Minister. If we are to have unitary authorities—I do not advocate that—special attention must be paid to areas that have had a tradition for

centuries of ruling themselves. They have often ruled themselves, having been cut off from central Government. Often, historic cities such as Carlisle were in a state of siege with no possibility of knowing what was being said in Westminster. On one famous occasion, Parliamentarians surrounded the city of Carlisle for many months and there was no option but for the city to govern itself. It even created its own coinage at that time. Carlisle is not unique, and those traditions were followed well before 1974. Many cities have proud traditions as county boroughs.
I hope that there will be time tomorrow to debate that subject. Indeed, I hope that it will not be necessary to debate the matter tomorrow. The Minister must be aware that time will be limited because of the Government's motion. If he is prepared tonight to say that the special place for historic cities should be recognised, it may not be necessary to debate the matter tomorrow. We shall then have an opportunity to debate other important parts of the Bill.
I understand that the Government are making a concession to continue the debate until midnight. Perhaps the Minister will turn into a pumpkin if we continue after midnight. Such a timetable is unsatisfactory. The Government want more but are not listening to elected representatives. As a Member of Parliament, I was sent here to scrutinise legislation and, as an Opposition Member, I am meant to oppose it. That is what democracy is about. It is my job to represent my constituents and scrutinise Government legislation. Because Opposition Members have been doing their job well, the Government can take it no longer. My hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) has obviously got under their skin and they are curtailing the debate, not because there is a problem with time but because they are not prepared to put up constructive arguments against our opposition to the Bill.
I hope that the motion will be defeated tonight, but I fear that it will not be. In that case, will the Minister responsible enter the debate tomorrow with a genuine desire to listen and accept the pertinent amendments? So far, the Minister has not accepted a single Opposition amendment—or even an amendment tabled by a Conservative Member. If we are to have a curtailed debate, I hope that it will be genuine on the Government's part and that they will accept the practical amendments. I hope that they will make some concessions on annual elections and historic cities.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) has spoken bravely about his relish for sitting through the night, but his speech reminded me of the first part of those Shredded Wheat advertisements. He spoke bravely and beat his chest, saying that he wanted to stay to debate the matter, but when it was suggested that we might sit through the night, I have never heard such whingeing. As I said in an earlier intervention, some hon. Members did not even want to stay through the night—

Mr. Martlew: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the Official Report, he will see that at no time was I whingeing.

Mr. Hughes: I did not say that the hon. Gentleman was stupid. He did his whingeing outside the Committee, but we all heard it.
I shall be brief because other hon. Members wish to speak and I do not wish to exclude them from the debate. As I listened to the debate and sat through hour upon of repetitious Opposition speeches in Committee, it became clear that Labour had singled out the Bill as the one that they wanted to force the Government to drop if the Government opted for an early election.
Labour did not concentrate on the Bill for several reasons. First, it did not do so because of the Bill's effect on local government. Labour Members say that they welcome the opportunity of allowing local government to opt for a unitary structure. However, that does not fit their stated policy. The debate on clause 8 revealed everything. A raft of almost identical amendments was tabled and it was clear that Labour, which is primarily producer-driven, sought to reward its paymasters. That is what the amendments were all about.
Labour sees the prospect of forming a Government retreating with every day. But if a Labour Government were elected, they would stop compulsory competitive tendering and the producers, the people who demand money from the Labour party and who rely on it for their jobs, the unions, would simply carry on in their old way. There would be no improvements in services.

Mr. Allen McKay: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hughes: I shall finish the point and then give way just once more.
Compulsory competitive tendering applies to the national health service as well as to local government, and in the NHS it saves £50 million a year. That is the cost of two local hospitals, but Labour would sweep that aside.

Mr. McKay: It appears that the hon. Gentleman is either misinformed, unintelligent or naive. I shall choose naive rather than either of the other two. In all the time that I have been here, I have known only one Bill that the Government wanted that failed to go through. That was a transport Bill. Any Government who want a Bill to become law can use the timetable. Therefore, there is no question of us filibustering to kill the Bill.

Mr. Hughes: In his last few weeks in Parliament, the hon. Gentleman has learnt a lot. I am grateful to him for accepting the logic of my argument. The Opposition could have talked the Bill out but we shall not give them the opportunity.
The second reason for Labour's opposition to the Bill is that it encompasses part of the citizens charter. Labour does not want its rotten local government record exposed in league tables. Labour is at the bottom of the tables for empty properties and for uncollected rents and rates, and the latest figures show that Labour authorities have failed to collect much of the community charge.
The third reason is that a Labour Government would want to emasculate the Audit Commission. The Labour party has made that clear. It does not want information to be published because it knows that that information will embarrass them. Without the Audit Commission, how would we have known that in seven months the direct service organisation in Liverpool has had 8,930 default notices for ground maintenance? Who would have discovered that seven Labour councils had not closed their

books by the statutory deadline three years in a row, that Hackney's legal department had lamentable failures and that that council was owed £67 million in rent, rates and other debts? How would we have known that Lambeth operates in an ethos of crisis management rather than one of forward planning? That is what the Labour party wants to cover up; that is why it wants the Bill to fail. But the Bill will not fail; we will get it through with proper debate tomorrow and then on to the statute book, ready for it to help us to win the general election.

Mr. David Bellotti: I am sorry that I could not be here to hear the opening speeches, but I was sitting outside Balham station in a train with a broken rail in front of it. I apologise for that, and I will refrain from commenting on the lack of investment in the railways, because that subject is not on the agenda tonight.
What is on the agenda is the proper consideration of this Bill. The Hansard report of our Committee makes interesting reading. The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) spoke in tonight's debate, but in nine Committee sittings he managed to amass only one intervention. The Government want to guillotine this Bill, saying that there is not enough time to consider it in Committee, yet the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) made seven interventions in 20 minutes during the first 65 minutes of consideration of the Bill in Committee. It is contributions such as those which have led us to this.
The record shows that, on behalf of my party, I tabled a small number of amendments and spoke reasonably briefly to each of them. Those amendments dealt with important matters, yet now, as we move towards part II, we are to be denied the opportunity of sensibly advancing alternatives to the clauses in part II.
Three of the major issues in part I with which my amendments dealt were: facilities for local government to provide annual reports and tendering information in braille and on tape so that people with disabilities can read the record of their local authority; measures to allow local people to give their views on the standard of services delivered by companies that tender for services, before those companies are given a further contract; and a measure to turn compulsory competitive tendering into the more constructive voluntary approach which has worked well in many local authorities. All these and others were constructive ways of trying to improve the Bill in Committee. There was no hint on my part of trying to delay the Committee's proceedings.
I am worried because, as we approach part II, really the most important part of the Bill, we will not have the chance to look at it in the detail that is required. Why did the Government need to bring in the items in part I in the same Bill? Why were not the two matters kept separate, given that the second part of the Bill was so important? Part II commands some support in all parts of the House; it could have proceeded well and been improved in Committee. Part I seems to have been necessary only to implement the Government's policy of making everything compulsory.
We also need to provide our local communities with reassurance. Those of us who support unitary authorities —I include myself in this—do not intend to steamroller people into accepting structures with which they do not


feel happy. Mistakes were made in the 1974 reorganisation, and we must not repeat them. People throughout the country need reassuring that they will not be reassigned to other local authority areas by someone sitting in Whitehall, and that they will not have someone arriving from London telling them what their natural community is.
It is important that from the work of the Local Government Commission should come a consensus with which people feel happy and under which they can enjoy their local services. The people in Polegate and Willingdon in my constituency are worried that they may be plonked in Eastbourne. They certainly should not be. People in such communities throughout the country want to remain with the authority with which they have been happy and which they feel is their natural community. The work of the Local Government Commission should enable them to stay where they feel happy, and I for one will do all I can to help them to do so.
Many people claim that providing an education service demands a particular size of authority, but that is just not true. Gillian Peele, fellow in politics at Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford, and Andrew Adonis, fellow in modern British government at Nuffield college, Oxford, have concluded after much research that few existing districts would finish up with fewer than 35 primary and five secondary schools. That would constitute a set-up that was viable to run education. The canard about size needs to be laid to rest.
Some services provided by county councils would give cause for concern if the authorities ended up small. I refer, for instance, to local archive services, which deserve a great deal of attention and which could be destroyed if very small authorities were made responsible for them. As for structure planning, in my county of East Sussex the basis of all planning has been that the strategic policy should divert growth to the south and east of our county, which in effect would protect the Sussex downs and the High Weald area of outstanding natural beauty. We must take on board the protection of those areas in any reorganisation of Sussex, as well as diverting economic planning for the future towards the areas where we want it to be. It is difficult to do that with single-tier local structures, yet that ought to be the way forward.
During our deliberations on part I, various local authorities and national bodies, including the Royal Institute of British Architects, drew to our attention what could be the result of not examining carefully what we are doing. The RIBA said:
If cost, not quality, becomes the criterion for choosing an architect, all that will happen is that we shall have a generation of slum buildings being built.
Many examples of that were drawn to our attention in Committee, to which we were able to give sufficient time.
The time spent so far has been adequate for part I. The time that we have now been given to consider part II is nowhere near adequate. It detracts enormously from the importance of part II. Therefore, I intend to oppose the guillotine motion, which is totally inappropriate and does nothing to serve our local communities.

Mr. Rupert Allason: I am opposed in principle to all guillotine motions, but I feel very strongly about this Bill because many of my constituents are anxious to have a single-tier local authority. The reason is obvious. Few people understand the difference between the roles and responsibilities of district authorities and county councils. If the Bill were to die before the general election, the day of the return to unitary authorities would be delayed for several years. That would be a disaster.
Torbay used to have the status of a county borough. That was regarded as highly successful. The reality is that the county councils have done themselves out of a job. Following the Griffiths report, there is to be much greater provision of care in the community at a much lower level; responsibility for it is to be devolved downwards. County councils will therefore be out of a job. The same applies to education: to local management of schools and to schools that opt for grant-maintained status. That will reduce the burden on the county council.
As the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Bellotti) said, there may be an argument for having a strategic authority for planning, perhaps for education and certainly for transport. That might be to the advantage of a county area, but there is no need to elect a strategic authority. If power is devolved down to the districts, I see no reason why, if the districts wish to have a strategic authority, they should not delegate members from the district to the county.
I am concerned about boundaries. My constituency does not cover the whole of the borough of Torbay. One particular ward does not form part of my parliamentary constituency; it forms part of the South Hams constituency. As an example of wasteful local government, this week the local authority conducted an absurdly expensive poll of the residents of Blatchcombe ward to determine whether they wished to remain in South Hams parliamentary constituency or to come within Torbay parliamentary constituency.
That was a fruitless exercise, when one considers that the Torbay parliamentary constituency is already too large. The chance of there being a change will not be increased by the poll. In my view, it was an absurd waste of public money. Curiously enough, though, if the people who live in that ward felt strongly enough about the issue, they would have every right to make representations to the Boundary Commission.
I am also concerned about some of the literature that was distributed in an apparently unbiased way to the people who live in that ward.

Mr. McCartney: This is parliamentary stuff.

Mr. Allason: It applies also to the local authority.
The literature that was sent to this particular group of voters, who are all members of a particular ward within the borough, relates specifically to the local authority. My worry is that we shall lose the opportunity to introduce a single tier of local government. In my experience, competitive tendering has been extremely useful and has saved much money. If the Bill were lost because of the general election, I fear that our constituents would be much worse off.
Unitary authorities are attractive to our constituents. I see no reason why any obstacles should be placed in the way of the Bill; it is important that it gets on to the statute


book. I understand that there is some contention about competitive tendering, but the crucial issue is in part II, which is why I urge the House to pass the timetable motion.

Mr. Bryan Gould: My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) has asked me to apologise for his absence as he has an unavoidable commitment in his constituency. His absence does not, however, deflect me from congratulating him and my other hon. Friends who have served on the Committee on the excellent and constructive way in which they have approached the Bill.
For once, I think that there is a certain coherence about the Government's guillotine motion. The Government's lack of concern for the democratic process at Westminster in terms of proper debate of important legislation is matched by, and, indeed, entirely consistent with, their constant efforts to undermine democracy in local government. There is, in other words, a nice harmony—perhaps "nasty" is more accurate—between procedure and substance.
The Government, who have introduced a record number of guillotine motions, have shown fewer and fewer scruples about doing so as the number has mounted. We heard a truly pathetic speech from the Leader of the House, who made only the most perfunctory attempt to defend what he was doing. He made no real case for proposing the motion on the basis of delay and of proceeding with the Bill. Indeed, how could he, since the arguments were so weak? How could it be argued that 12 clauses of a Bill should not have been debated for 30 hours in Committee, when clause 8 is a clause of the greatest contention which caused so much upheavel in another place as to warrant the Government's tabling an amendment to restore the position?
It was scarcely possible for the Leader of the House to make that case, and he hardly tried. Instead, we have a shameless attempt to clear the decks for a possible general election. The Government's legislative programme is being prostituted to their election timetable. The irony is that the timetable now driving the Government is one that they dare not declare and probably will not even have t he guts to adopt. The chances are that we shall have forfeited the prospects of a properly debated Bill for the sake of a general election date which the Government simply duck when faced with the challenge.
The truth is that the Government are still trembling in their tent, unwilling to take to the field of battle. The fact that they are now prepared to guillotine anything that moves shows only how far they now give absolute priority to saving their own skins rather than providing even a pretence of good government.
That instinctive lack of sympathy for and understanding of democracy in local government is matched by the substance of the Bill. It is called—ironically, one cannot help but think—the Local Government Bill, but it is more accurately described as the anti-local-government Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) pointed out, it comes at the end of a long catalogue of legislation in the past 13 years—perhaps nearly 60 Bills—designed to undermine the morale, constrain the competence, restrict the resources and destroy the independence of local government.
There is at least a certain "fearful symmetry"—to use Blake's phrase in a different context—in the fact that this bleak decade or more for local government was ushered in by the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) who, perhaps wisely, cannot be present this evening—even he, perhaps, has a sense of shame—and is being brought to its overdue close by that self-same long-standing opponent of everything for which local government stands. The Bill reflects the same animus against local government which has marked both the right hon. Gentleman's stints at Marsham street and most of what has happened in between.
It is a period which saw the centralisation of power in Whitehall, the imposition of rate capping—first as a limited brake on so-called irresponsibility, but now as a universal assertion by Whitehall of its control over every local authority budget. It is a decade or more which saw the privatisation of local government services, the unfair rigging of the grant system and, above all, the imposition not only on local government but on the whole country of the great blight of the poll tax—a blight which continues still and will eventually prove the undoing of the Government.
The guillotining of the Bill in this undemocratic way takes its dishonourable place in a long history of crimes against local democracy. The whole thrust of the Bill is accusatory of local government. Local authorities are put, figuratively speaking, in the dock. Instead of trying to help local government to raise standards, as we propose through a quality commission which will establish and monitor proper standards, spread and encourage best practice and offer management help when needed, the Government are intent on publishing misleading league tables laying emphasis exclusively on cost, irrespective of the context and the level of service delivered.
If the Government are really interested in performance league tables, why do they not consider the issues that really matter—home helps, meals on wheels, library services and nursery provision? We know why they do not want to consider those aspects of local government: because those league tables would show the best performers to be Labour local authorities.
We are left with the inevitable suspicion that the Government consider the problems that they have created for local government merely as grist to their electoral mill. They have a vested interest in the difficulties that some local councils have faced. Rather than help with resources and management support, they prefer to leave those authorities to struggle with their problems so that they can be placed in the stocks and pelted with Heseltinian insults. Fortunately, the electorate are unimpressed by this pantomime.
The same approach can be seen in the Bill's treatment of compulsory competitive tendering. We have always suspected the motives behind CCT. We have always seen it not only as an attempt to undermine local government and to make way for profit-taking by the private sector, but as an attempt to drive down wages and working conditions in one of the least favoured parts of the labour market—all in the hope that by doing so they would drag down the wage structure throughout the economy.
The success of direct service organisations and direct labour organisations in winning perhaps more than 80 per cent. of the contracts put out to tender has been bought at a heavy price in terms of wages and working conditions —and all for very little gain. The only partial studies which


have so far been done suggest that the small improvement in costs which can be attributed to CCT has been outweighed by the increased administrative costs which have attended the process of tendering. In other words, there is literally no basis for concluding that CCT has been such a success that it should now be extended, as the Bill proposes, to a whole new range of services—to the white collar services, the professional, technical and financial services.
The Bill is an expression of ideological prejudice which is unsupported by any evidence. Indeed, the evidence is very much to the contrary. The evidence shows that there is so little prospect of the private sector in those areas being able to match the efficiency of in-house services that the Government have had to introduce a quality threshold which they have always maintained was simply inappropriate elsewhere. The motivation here is so obvious that it is blatant. The double envelope procedure that the Minister described in Committee will apply, as he concedes, only if one of the competitors is a DSO or a DLO.
The whole exercise came unstuck in another place, and it was not helped by the constitutional monstrosity of the Henry VIII clause in which the provision was drafted. True to form, the Government have refused to listen to local government, to independent experts and to their Lordships. The Bill is still disfigured by the same objectionable provisions, in terms both of substance and of constitutional propriety.
Part II, an important part containing 18 clauses and three schedules, potentially affects the whole structure of local government. Part 11 is of tremendous importance to the way in which we govern ourselves. Yet the Leader of the House has the cheek to tell us from the Dispatch Box that a day's debate is sufficient for it. The right hon. Gentleman is simply not serious and cannot be taken seriously.
It is welcome that the Government have recognised that the Tory reorganisation of 1974 simply has not worked. Local government is not accountable enough and it is far too complicated, so that people simply do not understand the system. We have never made any bones of the fact —indeed, we got there before the Tory party—that we want a unitary system, a simpler and more accountable system. We also agree that the right way to bring about that system is not to impose it from on high from Whitehall but to set up a Local Government Commission to undertake the task.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gould: I do not have time, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman understands.
We made it clear in advance of the Bill that we would support the Local Government Commission, not least because it will greatly simplify our task by enabling us to pick up its work in government and therefore to shorten the timetable for reform. However, we have also made it clear that our support was conditional on the Local Government Commission being set up properly, on its not being gerrymandered and on its having the right terms of reference, objectives and timetable. The Secretary of State has thrown away the chance of all-party consensus

because he could not resist playing party politics—it is the predictable triumph of the party politician at the expense of the health of local government.
In part II, the Secretary of State has provided himself with what is in effect an instrument of party political warfare. He has created a commission which will trundle around the country under his direction, and which will line up its sights Labour-controlled county authorities so that they can be blasted to smithereens while leaving many Tory-controlled authorities intact. The whole process will lumber on for many years with partial reforms being instituted piecemeal and with dire consequences in terms of chaos and confusion for already hard-pressed local authorities, which will never know whether at any time they are meant to be unitary authorities or dual authorities and whether they are still threatened with or are now exempt from the prospect of reform.
The measure, and the guillotine needed to support it, are a fitting conclusion to a 13-year assault on local government by the Tory Government. We oppose the motion, as we have opposed every similar damaging attack on local democracy in the past 13 years. We may not have enough votes to ward off the assault today, but I am glad to say that the day is not far distant when we shall have the parliamentary votes to restore local government to its proper place in the government of this country.

The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities (Mr. Michael Portillo): I genuinely regret the unavoidable absence this evening of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), because the guillotine motion and what lies behind it add up to a story of personal tragedy for the hon. Gentleman. Having played second fiddle, poor fellow, to the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) on the Local Government Finance Bill Committee and having had to listen—as we all did—to very long speeches from the hon. Gentleman, the hon. Member for Brightside was at last given his own show —his own Bill to take through the House and through Committee. He wanted to address the issues seriously and, on the first two clauses, he did just that. We were having good debates and there was every prospect of our concluding our proceedings on the Bill in an orderly way and by agreement between the two sides.
Then something extraordinary happened. One morning progress ground to a halt. There had clearly been an intervention from on high—from a deus ex Dagenham. The hon. Member for Dagenham had clearly issued instructions that the Bill's progress was to be slowed down. We then saw a really very unhappy sight: the hon. Member for Brightside, wanting to do his job seriously and to address the issues, sat disconsolately on the Front Bench while one filibusterer after another on his Back Benches took the Floor and held forth at great length—presumably on the instructions of the hon. Member for Dagenham. What a collection they were—Rolls-Royce filibusterers filibustering at the very top of their pitch. My hon. Friends the Members for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) and for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) did well to pay tribute to filibustering of a very high order.
First into the field was the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien), dogged in his filibustering, never letting a point go but pursuing it to the nth degree. Then came the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr.


McCartney). I give him top prize; the real trophy goes to him. A man who can speak effortlessly—certainly with repetition but almost without hesitation—for one hour 40 minutes is a grandee—top of his class.
The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) was scarcely less able but could not quite produce that sort of filibuster all in one go. Having run out of steam in his first speech, he came back and made a second speech on the same amendment.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) is very good indeed—so long as one does not give him anything to read, because he finds reading a little tricky and stumbles over words. As long as he is extemporising, he is okay too.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) is not in the top flight of filibusterers but, given that he is the Whip, the fact that he intervened at all was proof indeed that a serious operation of delay was under way.
To be fair, that operation was balanced to some extent by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Bellotti), who compensated as we went along. There was one amendment that he was simply too miffed to move because he had not been told about the dinner break, and, on another occasion, because we went on rather late, he was not there to hear the winding-up speeches on one group of amendments or to move the next amendment. Fortunately, we saved a little on occasions when the hon. Member for Eastbourne might otherwise have intervened.
Imagine the frustration of the hon. Member for Brightside, particularly when—I plead guilty to this—I proposed that the Question be put on one amendment. After all the rubbish that we had heard, the hon. Member for Brightside, who had intended to give the serious reply from the Labour party, was cut off. The look of frustration on that man's face was deeply moving—in particular because his frustration and anger were not, I think, with the person who moved the closure but with someone else. I fully believe that the hon. Member for Brightside is unavoidably detained tonight. I do not believe for a moment that he simply will not share the Opposition Front Bench with the hon. Member for Dagenham.
The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said that we should avoid ineffectual legislation, but one does not avoid such legislation with ineffectual filibustering. If Labour had been serious, the speeches of the hon. Member for Makerfield would have been trimmed, the hon. Member for Carlisle would have been restricted to a single speech and the hon. Member for Brightside would have been allowed to have his say—but no, he was squeezed out of the debate.
Concern has been expressed that there will not be time under the terms of the timetable motion to consider the remaining clauses. We have 10 hours in Committee to consider part II. That is the same amount of time that the other place spent on those matters. The hon. Member for Copeland said that what happened in the other place should not influence what we should do here. I do not know about that. Their Lordships usually take a very responsible and minute interest in constitutional issues. If part II, which is about a constitutional matter—the reform of the structure of local government—could be considered in another place in 10 hours, I see no reason why we should not consider it here in 10 hours, provided that we can agree between us a sensible allocation of time for the various amendments.
There are no amendments to most of the clauses that we have to discuss. Most of the clauses will be discussed, if at all, only in clause stand part debates. The hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) put his foot in it when he said that part I was the contentious part. He said that part II was not contentious; therefore, it can be considered quite happily in the 10 hours allocated under the timetable motion.

Mr. Allen McKay: The Minister referred to 10 hours of debate. There will not be 10 hours; there will be eight and a half hours of debate. The rest of the time will be taken up with dinner breaks and the like—unless we cut that out.
I believe that part I is the contentious part. The contentious aspects of part II are who will comprise the commission and what will be its terms of reference. It would have been better to introduce two Bills—one in which we could debate competitive tendering and one in which we could debate the commission.

Mr. Portillo: I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Brightside, who has already had to deal with two Bills, would agree that we should have had three Bills on local government. However, I take the point made by the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone.
Why was part I contentious? Why was it filibustered? Why was it necessary to talk that part of the Bill out? The answer is that is contained the citizens charter, which sets out to measure local authority performance objectively. The Labour party has told us that the citizens charter is ineffective and that Labour is not bothered about it. Why should the National Association of Local Government Officers spend £2 million of union money opposing the citizens charter? Why does its advertising show a lady burning a copy of the citizens charter in her grate if the charter is not something that bothers the Labour party intensely? It was necessary for Labour to talk out the part of the Bill that related to the citizens charter because Labour is aware that it spells electoral peril for that party.
Part I also contained provisions enabling the Audit Commission to measure local authority output. The hon. Member for Brightside once fell foul of the Audit Commission when he was the leader of the Sheffield council. Since then, he has made a series of macho statements that he would sweep away the Audit Commission and that its days were numbered. In the fulness of time, those phrases had to be modified and it is now said only that the Audit Commission will be subsumed. "Subsumed" is a sinister socialist verb which means, broadly speaking, that its days are numbered and that it will be swept away. In its place there will be something less rigorous upon local authorities; their measurements will be self-determined.

Mr. Gould: The Minister and some of his colleagues have repeated that canard so frequently that it is time at least to educate them if they are too ignorant to do their work properly. What we propose for the Audit Commission is that not a single part of its functions should be lost. Those functions should be incorporated in the wider functions of the quality commission which will carry out all the current functions of the Audit Commission but will also add to its range of responsibilities a responsibility to raise the quality of services delivered by local government.

Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman, who has shown what an iron fist he has, will doubtless discipline the hon. Member for Brightside for using phrases such as "sweeping away the Audit Commission" or "its days are numbered", which the hon. Gentleman must agree are at the very least bound to give a misleading impression of the Labour party's apparently benign intentions towards the Audit Commission.
Why else has the Bill had to be filibustered? It has had to be filibustered because Opposition Members have a tremendous dislike of compulsory competitive tendering and must do all in their power to oppose it. Mr. Jack Dromey of the Transport and General Workers Union said:
The Council must include as many hurdles as it can in the tender specifications it sends to private contractors. It must try every possible way to prevent services being taken over by private firms.
We know from the advertising campaign that is presently going on that the National Association of Local Government Officers is against compulsory competitive tendering. That is the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) made.
The union brothers' support now for the Labour party is conditional upon the brothers' policies being put into effect if the Labour party is elected to Government. That is why, with a click of the fingers, what the unions want in compulsory competitive tendering becomes the Labour party's policy on compulsory competitive tendering. That is why some of the slowest debates that we had in Committee were on the subject of compulsory competitive tendering.
The Labour party's main hope in filibustering the Bill was that we should not get on to part II, which so concerns my hon. Friends the Members for Gloucester (Mr. French) and for Nottingham, South, who are keen to get on with debating the issues. Part II places tremendous emphasis on local communities, whereas the Labour party wishes a prescription from Whitehall to be introduced overnight so that there is no local discretion about the form of local government—it will all be decided by the Government in Whitehall.
Of course, the Labour party wants to establish regions with tax-raising powers. I say that it wants to establish regions with tax-raising powers—tax is certainly what the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) said. He was quoted in the Municipal Journal of 21 February. The hon. Member for Dagenham, recently on the Brian Walden programme, said:
no one is talking about tax-raising powers…for these regional assemblies.
"No one" may be the description that the hon. Gentleman wishes to give the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East, but I am bound to remind him that "no one" is unfortunately somebody in today's Labour party.
The hon. Member for Dagenham appears to be very confused about whether we will have one tier or two tiers under Labour. On the Brian Walden programme, he said:
local government needs to be simplified so that it is simply one tier. So our regional proposals while they don't depend on that, I think that is nevertheless the answer to your question about yet another tier, there won't be another tier.
So there are to be regions, but there is apparently not to be another tier.
The Labour party is against the citizens charter. Its acolytes in NALGO and in the National Union of Public Employees have determined that there should be no

compulsory competitive tendering, and that is now the policy of the Labour party, so the Bill has been filibustered. The Labour part is against compulsory competitive tendering because the brothers want to be sure that their members can have the jobs no matter what the cost to the customer. Therefore, the Bill has been filibustered.
The Labour party is against reform of local government structure because it wishes to impose new regions on the people of Britain, who do not want them. We will not allow the Bill to be lost for those reasons. I commend the motion to the House.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 292, Noes 203.

Division No. 84]
[9.59 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Curry, David


Aitken, Jonathan
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Alexander, Richard
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Day, Stephen


Allason, Rupert
Dorrell, Stephen


Amess, David
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Amos, Alan
Dover, Den


Arbuthnot, James
Dunn, Bob


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Durant, Sir Anthony


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Dykes, Hugh


Aspinwall, Jack
Eggar, Tim


Atkinson, David
Emery, Sir Peter


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Evennett, David


Baldry, Tony
Fallon, Michael


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Farr, Sir John


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Favell, Tony


Bellingham, Henry
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bendall, Vivian
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Benyon, W.
Fishburn, John Dudley


Bevan, David Gilroy
Forman, Nigel


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Forth, Eric


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Fox, Sir Marcus


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Franks, Cecil


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Freeman, Roger


Boswell, Tim
French, Douglas


Bottomley, Peter
Fry, Peter


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Gardiner, Sir George


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Gill, Christopher


Bowis, John
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Brazier, Julian
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bright, Graham
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Gorst, John


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Buck, Sir Antony
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Burns, Simon
Gregory, Conal


Butler, Chris
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Buttertill, John
Grist, Ian


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Ground, Patrick


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hague, William


Carrington, Matthew
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie


Carttiss, Michael
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Chapman, Sydney
Hampson, Dr Keith


Chope, Christopher
Hannam, Sir John


Churchill, Mr
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Clark, Rt Hon Sir William
Harris, David


Colvin, Michael
Haselhurst, Alan


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Hawkins, Christopher


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hayes, Jerry


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hayward, Robert


Couchman, James
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Cran, James
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)






Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Page, Richard


Hill, James
Paice, James


Hind, Kenneth
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Hordern, Sir Peter
Patnick, Irvine


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Patten, Rt Hon John


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Pawsey, James


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hunt, Rt Hon David
Portillo, Michael


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hunter, Andrew
Price, Sir David


Irvine, Michael
Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Janman, Tim
Rathbone, Tim


Jessel, Toby
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rhodes James, Sir Robert


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Riddick, Graham


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Key, Robert
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Roe, Mrs Marion


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Kirkhope, Timothy
Rost, Peter


Knapman, Roger
Rowe, Andrew


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Knox, David
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Sayeed, Jonathan


Latham, Michael
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lawrence, Ivan
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Shelton, Sir William


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shersby, Michael


Lord, Michael
Sims, Roger


Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard
Skeet, Sir Trevor


McCrindle, Sir Robert
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Soames, Hon Nicholas


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Speed, Keith


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Speller, Tony


McLoughlin, Patrick
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Squire, Robin


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Stanbrook, Ivor


Madel, David
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Malins, Humfrey
Stern, Michael


Mans, Keith
Stevens, Lewis


Maples, John
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Marland, Paul
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Marlow, Tony
Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Stokes, Sir John


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Summerson, Hugo


Mates, Michael
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Maude, Hon Francis
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Temple-Morris, Peter


Miller, Sir Hal
Thompson, Sir D. (Calder Vly)


Mills, lain
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Thorne, Neil


Mitchell, Sir David
Thornton, Malcolm


Moate, Roger
Thurnham, Peter


Monro, Sir Hector
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Moore, Rt Hon John
Tracey, Richard


Morrison, Sir Charles
Tredinnick, David


Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Trippier, David


Moss, Malcolm
Twinn, Dr Ian


Mudd, David
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Neale, Sir Gerrard
Viggers, Peter


Needham, Richard
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Nelson, Anthony
Walden, George


Neubert, Sir Michael
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Nicholls, Patrick
Waller, Gary


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Walters, Sir Dennis


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Norris, Steve
Warren, Kenneth


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Watts, John





Wells, Bowen
Wood, Timothy


Whitney, Ray
Yeo, Tim


Widdecombe, Ann
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Wiggin, Jerry
Younger, Rt Hon George


Wilkinson, John



Winterton, Mrs Ann
Tellers for the Ayes:


Winterton, Nicholas
Mr. David Lightbown and


Wolfson, Mark
Mr. John M. Taylor.


NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)
Fraser, John


Anderson, Donald
Fyfe, Maria


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Galloway, George


Armstrong, Hilary
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
George, Bruce


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Barron, Kevin
Gordon, Mildred


Battle, John
Gould, Bryan


Beckett, Margaret
Graham, Thomas


Beith, A. J.
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Bell, Stuart
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Bellotti, David
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Grocott, Bruce


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Hain, Peter


Benton, Joseph
Hardy, Peter


Bermingham, Gerald
Harman, Ms Harriet


Boateng, Paul
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Boyes, Roland
Haynes, Frank


Bradley, Keith
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Henderson, Doug


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Hinchliffe, David


Caborn, Richard
Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)


Callaghan, Jim
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Home Robertson, John


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Hood, Jimmy


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Canavan, Dennis
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Carl Me, Alex (Mont' g)
Howells, Geraint


Cartwright, John
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Hoyle, Doug


Clelland, David
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Illsley, Eric


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Ingram, Adam


Corbett, Robin
Janner, Greville


Cox, Tom
Johnston, Sir Russell


Crowther, Stan
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Cryer, Bob
Jones, leuan (Ynys Mön)


Cummings, John
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Kennedy, Charles


Cunningham, Dr John
Kilfoyle, Peter


Dalyell, Tam
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Darling, Alistair
Lambie, David


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Lamond, James


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Leadbitter, Ted


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Leighton, Ron


Dixon, Don
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Dobson, Frank
Lewis, Terry


Doran, Frank
Litherland, Robert


Duffy, Sir A. E. P.
Livingstone, Ken


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Livsey, Richard


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Lloyd, Tony (Stratford)


Edwards, Huw
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Enright, Derek
Loyden, Eddie


Evans, John (St Helens N)
McAllion, John


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
McAvoy, Thomas


Fatchett, Derek
McCartney, Ian


Faulds, Andrew
McFall, John


Fearn, Ronald
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
McKelvey, William


Fisher, Mark
McLeish, Henry


Flannery, Martin
McMaster, Gordon


Flynn, Paul
McNamara, Kevin


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
McWilliam, John


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Madden, Max


Foster, Derek
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Foulkes, George
Marek, Dr John






Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Rowlands, Ted


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Ruddock, Joan


Martlew, Eric
Sedgemore, Brian


Maxton, John
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Meacher, Michael
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Meale, Alan
Short, Clare


Michael, Alun
Skinner, Dennis


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Snape, Peter


Morgan, Rhodri
Soley, Clive


Morley, Elliot
Spearing, Nigel


Mowlam, Marjorie
Steinberg, Gerry


Mullin, Chris
Stephen, Nicol


Murphy, Paul
Strang, Gavin


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


O'Brien, William
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


O'Hara, Edward
Turner, Dennis


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Vaz, Keith


Patchett, Terry
Wallace, James


Pendry, Tom
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Prescott, John
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Primarolo, Dawn
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Quin, Ms Joyce
Winnick, David


Redmond, Martin
Worthington, Tony


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Wray, Jimmy


Reid, Dr John
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Robertson, George



Rogers, Allan
Tellers for the Noes:


Rooker, Jeff
Mr. Ken Eastham and


Rooney, Terence
Mr. Robert N. Wareing.


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Local Government Bill [Lords]:—

Committee

1.—

(1) The Standing Committee to which the Bill has been allocated shall report the Bill to the House on 18th February.
(2) Proceedings on the Bill at a sitting of the Standing Committee on that day may continue until Midnight whether or not the House is adjourned before that time, and if the House is adjourned before those proceedings have been brought to a conclusion the Standing Committee shall report the Bill to the House on 19th February.

Report and Third Reading

2. The proceedings on consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in one allotted day and shall be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock.

Proceedings in Standing Committee

3.—

(1) No Motion shall be made in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a member of the Government, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement from the Member who moves, and from a Member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.
(2) On the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill in the Standing Committee the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.

Order of proceeding

4. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which proceedings in the Standing Committee or on consideration of the Bill are taken, except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Dilatory motions

5. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be made in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Extra time

6. If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) stands over from an earlier day,

paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

Private business

7. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.

Conclusion of proceedings

8.—

(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings on the Bill which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time; the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);
(c) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment is moved or Motion is made by a member of the Government; and
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

and on a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
(3) If the allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which under this Order are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

Supplemental orders

9.—

(1) The proceedings on any Motion made by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to those proceedings.
(2) If on the allotted day the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before Ten o'clock, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Saving

12. Nothing in this Order shall—

(a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order; or
(b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

Recommittal

11.—

(1) References in this Order to proceedings on consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of, recommittal.
(2) On the allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or


otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

Business Committee and Business Sub-Committee

12. Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) and Standing Order No. 103 (Business sub-committees) shall not apply to this Order.

Interpretation

13. In this Order—
allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the day, provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day, or is set down for consideration on that day;
the Bill" means the Local Government Bill [Lords]

Association Agreements

Mr. George Robertson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The motion on the Order Paper begins:
That this House takes note of the proposals described in the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum".
The middle of the motion refers to welcoming
the principle of Association Agreements between the European Community and the reforming democracies of Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia
and it concludes by saying that the House
looks forward to early ratification of the Agreements".
The House has been asked in this debate of a maximum of an hour and a half to consider the association agreements. They are substantial, lengthy documents, which are important to this House, the country and the European Community. The Foreign Office supplied six copies of the documents to the House for the use of hon. Members. I was able, late this evening, to obtain the final copy of those documents. It is not satisfactory for the House to consider such an important issue and to refer to documents at short notice when there are not sufficient copies of them for the hon. Members who need to refer to them, especially during the debate.
The unnumbered explanatory memorandum and the draft interim agreement on the association agreements should also be available, but they were made available from the Vote Office only at 4.30 pm last Thursday. The documents could not be released—not even the report of the Select Committee on European Legislation—until after the business statement had been made. Hon. Members are being asked to debate matters of crucial importance to our constituents on a Monday evening without having had the opportunity to get hold of the documents until late last Thursday evening.
The motion asks the House to look forward
to early ratification of the Agreements.
Am I right in presuming that ratification happens automatically and that this hour-and-a-half debate will be our only opportunity to ratify those important agreements before they come into effect at the end of 1992?

Mr. Speaker: The Minister might like to answer those points. I take note of the hon. Member's remarks. The unnumbered explanatory memorandum, by long-standing practice, stands proxy for the House to consider such proposals in a fast-moving situation.
Of the other bulky documents, I understand that only six copies were available, so perhaps the Minister would like to explain.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hope that I can help the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) and the House.
The association agreements, of course, require a separate ratification debate in the House under section 1(3) of the European Communities Act 1972. On the documents that were made available last Friday, the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), the Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee, will confirm that the Committee had sight of those working documents early in December. The latest versions of the documents were deposited in the House on Friday. They are working documents, as stated in the motion.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We should get on with the motion now.

Mr. Peter Hardy: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Some of us spend much time discussing matters with our colleagues from the various eastern European countries and the debate is important to us. We were unable to receive or see those documents before we left the House last weekend. You will appreciate that weekends are very busy for many hon. Members. It is irresponsible and unreasonable for the House to be expected to debate documents which we have not had an opportunity to see.

Mr. Speaker: I cannot say much more about the matter. I understand that the documents were available on Thursday afternoon, which would have enabled Members to get hold of them before the weekend.

Mr. Robertson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The documents were specifically held back. As you well know from your background, we have a good knowledge of what the business might be for the following week before Thursday at 3.30 pm. Indeed, Opposition spokesmen are nominated to answer debates and Government spokesmen are put up before that. As the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, I requested a copy of those documents on Thursday and I was told that I could not have them because they could not be released from the Select Committee of the House to me until the Leader of the House had spoken at 3.30 pm.
I realise that such matters are catching you off guard, Mr. Speaker. They are being raised in this way because I found out about them only earlier this evening. The Minister's answer did not cover the association agreements. They are mentioned in the motion to be put forward by the Government this evening. Only six copies were available and hon. Members therefore had no opportunity to study them before this important debate.

Mr. Speaker: This is an hour and a half's debate and the House does not want to be kept up all night listening to points of order. I am not responsible for when documents are placed in the Vote Office, but I do not disagree with what the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) has said. It is unsatisfactory if hon. Members do not have an opportunity to study documents that we are about to discuss, because it leads to inadequate debate.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the complexity of the documents involved, rather than allowing Parliament to continue without adequate information, would it not be better to suspend the House for 10 minutes to allow the usual channels to arrange a different time to ensure that hon. Members have an adequate opportunity to consult the documents? Surely that would be fair.

Mr. Speaker: I cannot do that. The explanatory memorandum was available.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the proposals described in the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 29th November 1991,

relating to Association Agreements between the Community and its Member States and Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia, and European Community Document No. 10561/91, relating to interim agreements between the Community and Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia: welcomes the principle of Association Agreements between the European Community and the reforming democracies of Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia; recognises that these Agreements will offer them substantial benefits by encouraging trade with the Community, enhancing political co-operation, and strengthening links with the European Community to which these countries have expressed a wish to accede; and looks forward to early ratification of the Agreements.
The three association agreements—one each with Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Poland—are mixed agreements. There are elements which fall under Community competence and others that are intergovernmental. We hope that the main agreements will come fully into force before the end of the year. Those main agreements to which the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) referred will require a separate ratification debate in the House under section 1(3) of the European Communities Act 1972. The whole process of ratification in all 12 Member States is likely to take some months.
For that reason, and to avoid delay, the Community has decided to bring forward the implementation of those elements—mostly trade liberalisation measures—which fall entirely under Community competence. They are to be formally adopted on 25 February for imlementation on 1 March.
We are scrutinising both main and interim sets of agreements this evening. The Select Committee on European Legislation has rightly identified these agreements as politically important and worthy of debate. The House will be notified in due course of the Government's plans for ratification of the main agreements under section 1(3). A proper debate on that matter will take place in the House.
Help for central and eastern Europe falls under five broad headings. The association agreements are tailored to dovetail into existing help in all five areas. To be effective and to give the sort of substantial help that we wish to give, the association agreements must open the Community's markets to goods from Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Poland. The first and perhaps the most important element is trade liberalisation.
The agreements allow for the asymmetric lowering of trade barriers. The EC has agreed to reduce its barriers to imports more quickly than Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Poland reduce theirs. That is only right. The EC is a very large market. If the associate countries are to restructure their economies successfully, it will be vital for them to have full access to the EC's markets as quickly as possible.
The agreements also provide for a substantial measure of trade liberalisation in agriculture because agriculture is the area in which the three countries are most likely to become competitive. After only three years, import charges on their agricultural exports to the EC will be reduced to 40 per cent. of the present level, and the volume of their exports eligible for those preferential terms will grow by 50 per cent. over five years. Further progress towards free trade in agriculture will be made during the second five-year period of the agreements.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Has an assessment of any sort been made of the likely increase in CAP expenditure and in surpluses as a consequence of this superb trade rationalisation? Does not the Minister think


that it would be sensible to make some move towards reducing the cost of the CAP before inviting a further flood of trade which will simply add to the mountains of surpluses and to the cost of the CAP?

Mr. Garel-Jones: I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), who will be winding up the debate on behalf of the Ministry, will wish to answer my hon. Friend's detailed points. I am glad and not at all surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) welcomes agreements on agricultural free trade. One of the advantages of the agreements is that they will be beneficial to consumers in this country.

Sir Teddy Taylor: How will they help consumers? The Minister has made a specific statement that consumers will be helped. They are suffering hugely at present. If the expenditure and the mountains increase, how will the consumer be helped in any way? Will the Minister please tell us?

Mr. Garel-Jones: The consumer will be helped by the increased competition that the arrival of high-quality food at low prices from eastern European countries will bring to our markets.

Mr. Hardy: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Garel-Jones: I should like to make some more progress and then I shall give way.
Secondly, there is economic co-operation. That covers a wide range of sectors from industry and investment protection to energy, education and the environment. The aim is to help the three associate countries to build up the political and economic structures of a modern state, to compile reliable statistics and to enable them to help small and medium-sized companies and to counter the activities of money launderers.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On education and the environment, may I ask the question of which I gave the Foreign and Commonwealth Office notice—can anything be done to prevent the sale across frontiers of the beautiful wooden carvings that the all-party heritage group saw throughout northern Bohemia? Churches in remote areas are being robbed and vandalised. Would it not be ironic if with the end of communism there were an absolute collapse of any protection for Czechoslovak art? That is happening as a result of western European greed.

Mr. Garel-Jones: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to express concern about that. He has already written to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about it. As he knows, these matters are ultimately for the police in Czechoslovakia, but he will be pleased to learn that some of the assistance that we are giving that country, through the know-how fund, is aimed at helping the police force there to pursue criminals of this sort. I certainly share the hon. Gentleman's concern.

Mr. Hardy: Will the Minister take note of the fact that, at various meetings in those countries, one of which I recall attending in the Budapest Parliament, members of his party—I exclude the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg), who has played a distinguished role in all this—repeatedly and vigorously urged these countries to sweep away all regulations and to

leave their countries free for entrepreneurs from western Europe, who would then help them? Because such regulations were swept away, this sort of scandal is bound to occur, and is bound to be repeated, until more sensible advice comes from western Europe.

Mr. Garel-Jones: I recognise that there is a certain nostalgia among Labour Members for at least some of the repressions and controls that used to be exercised on the other side of the iron curtain. The hon. Gentleman knows better than to try to attribute the rise in crime in some of those countries to the freedoms and liberal market economies being built up in them. That will not wash. The hon. Gentleman and many of his hon. Friends still find the idea of a free market offensive, but that is the very concept that these associations agreements are designed to bolster.
The third aspect deals with approximation of laws. In anticipation of successful applications for Community membership the three will take steps to bring basic commercial and financial legislation into line with Community legislation. That will be working with the grain, because market forces will encourage them to base their laws on Community texts. We are ready to help with the drafting of laws, under our programme of technical assistance, when we are asked to do so. British advisers are already at the centre of the privatisation programmes in Czechoslavakia, Hungary and Poland.
Fourthly, I refer to the political dimension. The growing political dialogue with these three countries is not an EC monopoly. The Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, the North Atlantic Co-operation Council and the Council of Europe, whose president, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) I see in his place, are all closely involved too. But the EC is the club to which the central and east Europeans most want to belong. To help that long-term ambition, to prepare the way and to give a foretaste of what membership involves, the association agreements will set up association councils which will meet once a year at ministerial level to review and build on the agreements.
A committee of officials will assist the council. There will be a political dialogue with the Twelve's machinery for foreign policy co-operation. Already these countries are being influenced by decisions taken by the Twelve.
Fifthly, I must deal with financial arrangements. The agreements do not directly cover financial help, but the record of Community members is good. The Community set up the special PHARE programme of technical assistance, initially for Poland and Hungary but now covering all of eastern Europe. So far, the Community has committed £877 million to these programmes. The agreements promise to continue technical assistance beyond the end of this year.
For these three countries, association agreements bring to an end that chapter of European history which began with the collapse of the Berlin wall. That collapse demonstrated that command economies of the kind favoured by socialists do not work and that the more extreme attempts to make socialism work through communist dictatorship resulted in the cruel and immoral denial of human rights. Secondly, it gave the lie to the fashionable internationalism of the last 40 years that sought to deny that patriotism and the sense of belonging to a nation could—indeed, should—be subsumed under some sort of all-enveloping socialist morality. In the end,


it was that sense of belonging that gave Poles, Czechoslovaks and Hungarians the courage to come out into the streets against communism.
Those of us in the west who have consistently advocated free market economies underpinned by democracy—[Interruption.] I recognise that the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) is not one of them—therefore had a moral duty to move to support these new democracies. That is why it was the British Government who first proposed association agreements in the European Council in Strasbourg in December 1989, and that is why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister moved to speed up the negotiations last summer.
These agreements begin to substantiate the euphoria with which we all greeted the arrival of Poland, Czechosolvakia and Hungary into the family of democratic nations. They provide the tools for consolidating democracy and creating a liberal market-oriented economy. [Interruption.] I recognise that the hon. Member for West Derby does not like that sort of economy, but that is the kind of economy we seek, however painful it may be to the hon. Gentleman to hear that.
Britain's leadership in this area, in setting up the association agreements in the first place and pushing for them within the Community, is widely recognised and much appreciated in those countries. We now have to build on the agreements and make them work. We hope to be able to hold the first association councils during our presidency and we hope that the agreements that in the their preamble
recognise that Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia's ultimate objective is to accede to the Community
will indeed help them to achieve that objective. In that spirit, I commend the motion to the House.

Mr. George Robertson: I hesitate to return to the point of order which was made before the debate started, but it is essential to drive, home to the Minister that the way in which we deal with European Community business is wrong and inefficient and should not be tolerated. The Minister underlined the importance of the subject throughout his speech. The way in which the House has been treated is therefore a classic illustration of how the House should not deal with business of such importance.
It is not appropriate that we should receive copies of the documents late on a Thursday afternoon when they are to be debated in the House of Commons on the following Monday. It is intolerable that documents of such consequence as the association agreements, which were signed by the Government on 16 December 1991, are still unavailable to the House of Commons in the middle of February 1992.
It should come as no surprise to the Minister that the Opposition welcome the agreements between the European Community and Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia, from what we have been able to read of them up to now. We believe that it is in the interests of those countries and of Europe as a whole that full

European Community membership should be seen as the aim of the exercise. We therefore warmly applaud the inclusion in the preamble of the words
bearing in mind the ultimate objective of the three countries is to become full Community members … this agreement will help to reach this.
We believe that the political stability of the central European new democracies will be secured only by, first, the achievement of economic strength and, secondly, the adaptation of their political, legal and social institutions to the standards that we take for granted in the west of the continent.
These association agreements, or European agreements as they are now called, have to be seen as a first step by us in the still wealthy and politically secure and stable west of the continent to enrol our central European partners in our far from exclusive club. We shall have to go well beyond the measures in the agreements to ensure that full membership is attainable and possible. Much can be done to make that happen, but much still needs to be done.
I should like to share with the House my feelings of last weekend. On Saturday afternoon, I walked for about a mile with my daughter, Rachael, who is 11. There was nothing particularly spectacular or remarkable in that, even for a politician seven weeks away from a general election, but our walk was slightly out of the ordinary. We walked from the Reichstag in Berlin, the future home of the Parliament of the unified Germany, through the Brandenburg gate up the Unter den Linden to the Volkskammer, the defunct Parliament of the now defunct German Democratic Republic.
In a hastily written peroration, the Minister referred to the Berlin wall and its demolition in 1969. I first saw the Berlin wall in 1981 when I visited the city with Brynmor John and other members of Labour's defence team. I could not disguise my revulsion and shock at what the wall looked like and what it represented—a lethal concrete partition down the centre of Europe. It was a division not only between east and west Berlin but between two systems —one corrupt and venal, prostituting the word "socialism" and denying real and vital freedoms, and the other system, which perhaps is imperfect and fickle but which allows its citizens a choice of opinions, goods and futures. We shall exercise that choice in only a few weeks, time.
Like so many other hon. Members, I saw the wall and checkpoint Charlie again and again over the years, and it never ceased to be an obscenity. In 1983, I asked Richard von Weizsacker, then governing mayor of west Berlin and now the first president of the united Germany, whether he thought that I would be able to walk through the Brandenburg gate with my daughter in the year 2001, when she will attain the age of 21. He and I, and I am sure every other Member of the House, thought that that was an impossible dream, but last Saturday my daughter and I did what so many have done since that famous night on 22 December 1989 when the most famous closed road in Europe was opened. It was a moving moment that I will never forget.
I drew two lessons from that walk. First, if we in the west had been able calmly and rationally to choose whether to admit the citizens who lived beyond the Brandenburg gate into the European Community, would we have done so so quickly? Given the basket-case nature of the economy of the German Democratic Republic, would not it have been put a long way down the queue for


membership of the Community? The reality is that we had no choice. The GDR united with the Federal Republic of Germany, and had it not done so its citizens would have decamped into the territory of West Germany. Like it or not, they are now full members of the European Community, and the Community has not trembled as a consequence.
The second lesson of our collective sweet relief that the 28-year-old Berlin wall had come down was that we dare not rest on our celebrations. There is a danger—a real and live danger—that one wall will come down and another one, an economic wall, will go up between the club members and failed applicants, between the rich west and the poor unstable countries in the east and between those who enjoy the taste of freedom of movement and those who will be told that we have no room for them and 'will they kindly keep out.' Speaking personally but with some passion, I hope, having experienced that liberating feeling last Saturday in Berlin, I have no intention of letting my daughter grow up in a world in which she will have to fight to get the gates—new economic gates as they may well be —open once again in 20 years' time. In the short term—

Sir Teddy Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman explain this liberalisation for the people of eastern Europe? According to my reading of the agreements, they state that freer trade and the ability to increase our food mountains depend on those countries first agreeing to the progressive harmonisation of their laws with ours. How does it create liberality in Europe if they have to adopt EC laws so that they can dump their food and add to our dumping?

Mr. Robertson: I shall let the hon. Gentleman continue his private war with members of his Front Bench because he finds that much more enjoyable, and so do they.
Inevitably, we and the people of eastern Europe want to see a harmonisation of their laws with those of the European Community. They are not obliged to do that, but that harmonisation is their target, their wish and their desire. They are willing to work towards that target which they believe will build a strong democracy for them in the future. Perhaps at some distant point in that future—and especially under a Labour Government—some sanity will be brought to the common agricultural policy. We are committed to that, and it is something that the Conservatives have signally failed to achieve in the past 13 years.
In the short term, it is not our aid or our technical assistance that will make the difference to the economic convergence, although it will have a major role to play but trade between west and east. That is the real importance of the European agreements. They will start the process of allowing the central European states to build export markets. Only by selling their goods will they provide jobs and guarantee prosperity for their people. If we close off markets, we risk their economic experiments and our own security. If this fails, we can confidently—

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Robertson: No, I shall not. There is a shortage of time. Oh, I shall give way briefly.

Mr. Oppenheim: If time is that short, perhaps the hon. Gentleman should have spent less of it talking about his nice stroll through Berlin.
He rightly said that it was crucial for eastern Europe that we open our markets to it, but surely if he reads the documents he will find that we are not opening up our markets to eastern Europe—we are keeping them closed for a further five to 10 years. At the very time when those countries are desperately struggling to convert their economies to market economies, we are not practising what we preach, because we are keeping our markets closed to their goods.

Mr. Robertson: These are minimum periods. Yes, perhaps they are too conservative. Perhaps the Government whom the hon. Gentleman supports at the moment took too conservative a view, but these agreements for progressive liberalisation of the markets were reached by both sides. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should concentrate his attention on the members of the Government Front Bench rather than on me.
There is a serious danger that if we fail, especially on the issue of trade, we can confidently expect the pressures of immigration to intensify. To expect the possibility of a return to a new and perhaps even more ruthless authoritarianism is certainly not scaremongering.
The director of research for the general agreement on tariffs and trade, Mr. Richard Blackhurst, recently calculated the threat from central and eastern European trade. He pointed out—these are interesting statistics—that in 1988 Czechoslovakia, Poland and Hungary had a combined share of world trade below that of Hong Kong, South Korea, Singapore and Taiwan back in 1970. Since 1970, the Asian four tigers, as they are called, quadrupled their share of world trade, yet it has not had a dramatic impact on western Europe.
To be more specific, in western Europe in 1988, only 1·3 per cent. of all manufactured imports came from the countries of eastern Europe—hardly a real danger to our economic survival. Britain's trade with central Europe lags well behind that of Germany, France and Italy. Those countries see a long-term potential in the new markets in eastern Europe, whereas in Britain a combination of short-term conservative business attitudes and a privatised Export Credits Guarantee Department means that yet again we shall lose.
Aid and assistance is vital if we are all to benefit from the experiment in central Europe. Much has to be done. Fair enough, four fifths of all foreign aid committed to eastern and central Europe has come through the European Community and the PHARE programme has done much, but alongside help from the Group of 24 and the Group of Seven there has been tied aid and guarantees which have not been taken up. Our belated bilateral programme, good as it is in quality and excellent as it is in delivery, is nothing like enough to make a lasting impression.
Next year, our know-how funds for all five countries in central and eastern Europe—I pay tribute to the success of the funds—will amount to the grand total of £30 million. That is the sum to be spent in Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria and Romania. That is a ludicrously miserable sum when our exports of banking, accounting, management and English language training skills are so popular and so much in demand and there is such a valuable pay-back in the long term.

Mr. Garel-Jones: By how much would Labour propose to increase the know-how fund? Has the hon. Gentleman had clearance from the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer?

Mr. Robertson: We have already made the commitment that there will be an increase in the know-how funds. The precise amount cannot be stated now. The Foreign Office is in no position to give guarantees. We are told that miserable sums will have a deep and lasting impact, yet the Government are not in a position to say how much more will be spent. Outstanding work is being undertaken by the British Council, by our embassy personnel, by organisations such as Voluntary Service Overseas and by other countries, and it should be backed by real money. The United Kingdom could give that money and the countries that we are discussing could use it.

Mr. Nigel Forman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Robertson: No, I shall not give way. I am conscious of the limited time that is available for the debate.
Britain is one of the few countries in the European Community still to insist on a rigorous and highly unpopular visa requirement for Poles coming to this country. Can the Minister justify that policy, bearing in mind the fact that Britain stands alone? What will happen to the policy when the agreements take effect?
In the words of the chief negotiator of the Commission, Mr. Pablo Benarides, the agreements are not "an entrance ticket" to the EC. He referred to them as a "kind of trial run". We see them as the start of a process that involves genuine political will to make these countries become members, to help them with the convergence that will be necessary and to ensure that economic and political barriers have no more place in the Europe of tomorrow than they have at present in the heart of Britain.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I should like to raise the sights of the House somewhat. The motion mentions the fact that the three nations in question wish to accede to the Community. To do that, they must satisfy a major test, which is to be quite certain that their laws on human rights and elections meet the high standards of the Council of Europe, which has now been recognised by the European Community as the bridge over which the nations can cross to it in the years ahead.
We had to find a way of bringing the nations into association with us. That we did by offering them guest membership of the Council, which gave them the opportunity to participate in our democratic debates, to take part in our committees and to see—after four decades and more—how a democracy worked. I had the great privilege of formulating the rules under which the countries were able to enter the Council of Europe. I did so with the assistance of the hon. Member for Wakefield who, in other circumstances, is my hon. Friend—

Mr. Hardy: Wentworth.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: Yes, Wentworth, where there is that ghastly American mess of chemicals which should never have been there.
Between us, the hon. Gentleman and I managed to formulate the arrangements. That has resulted in the full membership of Poland, the Czechoslovak Federal Republic and Hungary, which is far more important than the quibbling over detail that I have heard at least twice tonight.
We must look much wider. I received Lech Walesa in my office in Strasbourg last week—we had about 40 minutes' worth of conversation together—and the major problem that he put to me—[Interruption.] Will my right hon. Friend the Minister allow me? Lech Walesa said that the major problem was that, although the west had paid enormous tributes to Poland for being a pioneer in breaking free, the words had not been matched by deeds, and he was having immense problems in finding a way of converting the Polish economy to the sort of methods that were needed to turn Poland round.
I had also met him four months earlier, when I led the election observer team. On that occasion, the worry was whether Poland would produce a Government that could command a majority in the Sejm. They could not command a majority, and democracy was multi-party.
We now have the opportunity to show the three nations in question that the west is willing to find a way of encouraging their trade. Mr. Walesa told me, "You have been very generous in exporting your goods to our countries so that we spend our money on buying imported goods. We wish that you would give us an opportunity to produce more goods in our country that you would buy." That is what is needed, and I believe that the proposals in the document are a first step.
There is a very real danger that, before too long, if things do not work out properly, we may have a Czech republic and a Slovak republic and there will no longer be a federal republic of the two. That would be a tragedy. If the citizens of the countries can see that democracy pays them dividends—if they have goods to buy at prices that they can afford—we stand a chance of success. If we do not show them that, there is a real risk—as the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) and my right hon. Friend

the Minister said—that the democracies will fail. If they do fail, we in the west will have to take much of the blame for being too protectionist, too little Englander and too unwilling to live up to the reputation that we ought to have —that we aid democracy.

Mr. Peter Hardy: The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) referred to me a moment ago. It is only right that the House should be aware of the considerable contribution that he has made over the past two or three years—not least in being very active in the Council of Europe in Strasbourg during a period of change.
I am very worried indeed about the likely consequence to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Only a week or so ago in Strasbourg, I asked the Chairman of the Council of Ministers whether he was fully aware that, two or three years ago, we were talking about a Europe of 15, and within the next 18 months there is likely to be a Europe of 45.
As Europe has widened, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Poland have become full members of the Council of Europe, which, as the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate said, is a staging post to full membership of the Community of Europe. However, if a mess is made of the development of those three states, the rest of the emerging republics of eastern Europe will face a colossal crisis.
Although I am not critical of the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate, I am perhaps critical of all other Conservative Members. I believe that Britain and the rest of the Community have made mistake after mistake. It is all very well to say, "Open your countries to democracy and trade." About 18 months ago, I attended an important debate in the Hungarian Parliament, in which advice was offered by people from the right of European and British politics—and perhaps one or two Conservative Members, such as the hon. Members for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) and for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone), who play such distinguished roles there and who devote a great deal of time to the Council of Europe, were present; I cannot remember.
However, the Polish Prime Minister and the Polish Foreign Secretary and the Czech Prime Minister and Czech Chancellor of the Exchequer were also present. They were advised to copy the philosophy that has dominated our Government: they were told to privatise. They were even given the specific example of the need to sell off their council houses so that the capital receipts would, as in Britain, stimulate their building industries. I had to point out that those capital receipts in Britain were largely frozen, and that that advantage did not apply here.
That may be a petty example, but the fact remains that we have told them that we can offer them a great deal, but they have gained remarkably little advantage. The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate said that Lech Walesa had told him that we must deliver what we appear to have promised. We are not doing that. Poland is likely to face a greater economic crisis than it faced before.
The Minister seems to be making the mistake of assuming that Europe will open its doors to agricultural exports. We might; the Danes might and the Dutch might. Even the Germans might. However, does the Minister seriously believe that the French, Spanish or Greeks will be happy to allow the agricultural exports from


Czechoslovakia, Hungary or Poland to enter their countries? Would there be no protests from French farmers as Czechoslovakian, Hungarian and Polish agricultural products sought to enter their markets? We are in danger of leading the newly emergent countries of eastern Europe into believing that the west will be as co-operative as the west appears to promise.
As I have said, within two years there will be a Europe of 45. It is possible to list the various republics that will comprise that number. It is less than two years since Finland became the 23rd member state of the Council of Europe when we celebrated its 40th anniversary. One can only marvel at the pace of change politically in Europe. That change embraces the concept of extensions of human rights which are politically highly desirable. Unless the political change is matched by an economic wisdom that none of us has yet perceived and which is scarcely discernible, given the appalling way in which the House is kept informed of changes in Europe—

Mr. Garel-Jones: indicated dissent.

Mr. Hardy: It is no good the Minister shaking his head. How much opportunity has the House had to consider properly the dramatic changes that have taken place in Europe? Leaving aside the contribution of Opposition Members, how much of an opportunity has the House had to consider the contribution made by the Government in pursuit of those changes?
We are having a late-night debate when the House is scarcely given a proper opportunity to see documents or to consider the facts. Specious promises are offered in a document that seems to present much but actually offers little. It is time that, in Britain and in the rest of western Europe, we saw much more vision and common sense. The serious political changes that are now taking place are not being matched by anything like mature economic consideration.
One cannot say that the debate takes us any further, except of course, that it gives one the opportunity to pay tribute to some Conservative Members, particularly the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate, who has become the President of the Council of Europe and who deserves rather more consideration than he has been given by some of his hon. Friends.

Mr. David Howell: There surely can be no doubt that the draft interim agreements are a modest but most definite step in the direction that we all want to see, which is the creation throughout Europe of a great confederation of free republics and monarchies—free democracies—operating free markets and achieving market prosperity. That is the aim for which the previous generation fought the second world war. At the end, those people were cheated and they found that half of Europe had been cut off and denied the democracy, free enterprise and markets that brought great prosperity to western Europe.
This is clearly the right step forward. It is not, of course, anything near the certain road to full membership, which I should like to see. The small print of the draft agreements shows that although the parties seeking to associate themselves—the troika of Poland, the Czech and Slovak

federal republic and Hungary—believe that by signing them the objective of membership is recognised, that is a rather one-sided affair. It is only on their side that there is hope that they will achieve that objective. There is no guarantee provided by the signatories of the Community that it will lead to membership. The reality is that that prospect lies a considerable way away, whether we like it or not.
I agree with the eloquent words of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg), who plays such a distinguished part in the Council of Europe, that if those countries fail, will be our failure. If they do not succeed, having thrown off tryanny and making it all the way to open and free societies, the cost for us will not merely be that we blame ourselves; there will be direct and ugly costs in terms of destabilisation, migrant movements and pressures which could be very unsettling. There would be a weakness in the whole economic flank of western Europe, and even darker forces could be unleashed to upset the tranquility of the previous 40 years in western Europe on which one will look back. The stakes are very high and they must, by all efforts, succeed. If, in the long run, we do not allow the goods to come into western Europe and, indeed, into the wider world, the people will. That will be an awful trade-off, and there will be very little that we can do to prevent it.
Those must be the long-run aims. They will be very long run, for obvious reasons. First, although the economies about which we are talking have begun to be transformed, they are still far from being anything like market economies and far from operating sensible price structures. There is no way in which, tomorrow morning, they could link into full-blown, treaty of Rome, Commission-negotiated membership of the classic Community.
Secondly, whether we like it or not—some hon. Members clearly do not like it at all, and I understand why —the agricultural interests of western Europe, already under seige and deeply protected, will not allow the vast agricultural output of those countries—for example, the huge arable output of the Danubian plain and the vast meat output of Poland—to come rolling into western Europe or, possibly, on to world markets. There is no question of full membership in that sense being permitted for many years to come—indeed, it is very hard to see at this stage how that could ever happen.
The third reason why there will be resistance to full membership is enlargement indigestion. Earlier this afternoon, we debated the arrival of the "Eftans" in the European economic area agreement. Five of them are rapidly lining up to become full members of the Community. Most of them want to do so by 1995. The bureaucrats of the Community look on that alone with great alarm. The prospect of the further three being full members, even by the year 2000, fills people with dismay, particularly those who believe passionately in the original tight-knit European Community structure as set out by the treaty of Rome.
Those of us who want a change of direction to a wider Europe believe that with enlargement, provided that the process is handled carefully, a European union better than the one that we have at present can be created. That is certainly my wish. But for those who operate the finer points of the negotiation inside the Commission, enlargement at this speed, involving not merely the five "Eftans" but the three which are the subject of the


association agreements and many other countries besides, as the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) suggested, is a dangerous prospect. It could dilute and fundamentally change the Community as we know it.
I wish to ask three questions about the scene that lies before us with Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia. First, to what extent will the draft association agreements fill part of the gap and meet any of the immediate need of the three new democracies? Of course they will help, but I am not sure that they are enough. The need of those countries is obviously not merely to get some trade going, to have know-how support, project aid and budget aid and to have their currencies finally stabilised; it is psychologically to feel that for certain they are part of the European community—community with a small "c", the community of the free Europe—and that they will not be sucked back into any form of militarism or fascism, particularly with the vortex of chaos developing on their eastern flank in the extremely shaky Commonwealth of Independent States.
These countries want firm links of a political nature that will begin to bind them into the freer and wider Europe that we all want to see. I hope that it will be the absolute priority of the British Government during our presidency to ensure that the association agreements are not only put in place fully—that must be so—but thickened and developed and that they offer more than merely signatures on bits of paper with officials then saying, "Goodbye, we are off to Brussels again, see you in a few years." That would not be good enough.
We need to think in terms of stronger political links now for the three countries, which are all in extreme danger. Living standards are falling in all of them. Even in Hungary, which we think of as successful, living standards are precarious. As a result, the democracies are precarious. The countries are living on a diet of hope and prayer and the belief that just round the corner a few years away there really will be a turnaround, or on a diet of overspill of deutschmarks from the vastly funded former East Germany which is their neighbour. But it is a precarious existence and it could collapse at any moment.
The three countries need support now and we have to think about how that can be given. Of course, the small print of the association agreements offers more than just the hope of some asymmetrical lowering of trade barriers and the distance promise of a little agricultural trade one day. The agreements offer a political consultation procedure and imply that Heads of Government and Ministers of the three countries and the leaders of western Europe will met regularly. That will help. Some network of closer links can be developed there.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate spoke about the Council of Europe and he has personally given great leadership on that front. It clearly provides—"waiting room" is the wrong phrase—a place where the new democracies can stand shoulder to shoulder with, exchange views with and begin to understand the new world which they have joined and to which they are welcome.
On the security side, there is the famous North Atlantic Consultative Council, which is NATO's attempt, if not to extend its guarantees, to extend some shadow of security to eastern European countries. They need it. They need a security framework. That is on offer, but the NACC is a

large club. It includes all the successor states of the former Soviet Union and it may not be enough. The countries of eastern Europe will probably need something else.
We have to ask why we cannot link Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia now with other aspects of the new European union that we have just invented. At Maastricht we set up not a European Community—that is the past —but a European union, which includes the Community and the new pillars of foreign and security policy and other policies.
There is no reason why there should not be ministerial-level collaboration on a formal basis with those countries, so that, without facing the full rigours of the market or the full requirements of the negotiating procedures of the Commission, they can be involved, here and now, in a European entity. That could even be a political union, or the greater European union that many of us want to see and that will take us far beyond, and wider than, the old EC.
I welcome what has been done, but it is only a start. We are looking now, as we did in the earlier debate about the EFTA countries' membership of the European economic area, at the shape of the European union to come. It is not like the past. Maastricht was not a stepping stone to another bout of the same kind of Europe. Thanks not least to the vast skills that my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary used in their negotiations, it was, as we shall see when we debate ratification, a change of direction for Europe. It was a move towards a union that will be a home for these new democracies. We fought a war to bring freedom to them and failed. Now, we have another chance.

Sir Russell Johnston: I wish first to associate myself most warmly with the remarks made by the hon. Members for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) and for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg). Both struck exactly the right note, and put the debate in proportion. The election of the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate as president of the Council of Europe following the resignation of Anders BjÖrck is well-deserved, and we can see why he deserved it from what he said.
I shall not repeat what the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) said about the debate, but I associate myself with it entirely. It makes a mockery of all this stuff about the pre-eminence of Parliament if we do not have the documents and are given a mere weekend's notice. It is all very well for the Minister to say that the documents were available on Friday, but everyone knows where Members of Parliament are on Friday—in their constituencies. Then we are given only an hour and a half for the debate. It is not very good, is it?
As hon. Members have said, what we are debating is of the greatest importance not only for Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary, but for the former Soviet Union. The move to democracy in these three countries has coincided with the break-up of the Soviet union. Their position, as forward examples of the success of the free economy, is of the greatest importance.
The explanatory memorandum refers in its first paragraph to the association agreement being founded on a United Kingdom proposal. I am sure that this is correct, but I would be happier if we stopped boasting about our


role when the help that we give in trade and aid is noticeably less than that given by others. The increase in trade achieved by the three countries with the west has, to a small extent, offset the loss of commerce with the Soviet Union, but it has been with Germany, which is now the major trading partner of all these three countries. Germany has likewise been in the lead in providing aid. When I recall the remarks made in the Chamber after the unification of Germany, about the threat that it would represent—some of the more notable came from a right hon. Member who was at that time a Minister—I think that those who made them should hang their heads in shame.
As the hon. Member for Hamilton said, the political stability of central Europe is of the utmost importance, but equally the restructuring of economies there can be seen to be of enormous complexity and difficulty. Goodness knows, the Germans are finding this in what was East Germany, and the situation in these three countries is more difficult still because they do not have the resources that the Germans can provide or the expertise for the managerial takeover in which they are engaged.
At the end of last year, I was one of the Council of Europe observers at the Polish elections and spent a cold, snowy day in Poznan, which was the scene of terrible riots many years ago. It was very orderly and quiet—almost dull. The turnout was miserable—under 40 per cent.—and, as the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate has already mentioned, representation was hugely fragmented.
The hon. Member for Hamilton said that if visible progress was not made in an acceptable period there would be the danger of a return to authoritarianism. That is certainly not impossible, for hunger drives out democracy very quickly. The hon. Gentleman was also right to point to the size of the know-how fund: £30 million is not insignificant, certainly, but it will not make all that much of an impression. The Minister may ask, "How much would you make it?" I am not in the business of doing that sort of thing; I am simply saying that I am tired of people being self-congratulatory about what they are not entitled to congratulate themselves about.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Wentworth and the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) were right to pay particular attention to the difficulties affecting agriculture. I am equally sure, however, that the idea of triangular trade—in other words, helping the countries to export to what was the Soviet Union—is the easiest solution, at least in the short term.
We are talking about transition from a communist economy to a free economy; we are talking, we hope, about a transition that willl lead to membership of the European Community—some years hence, but within a perceptible period. We are talking about how we can help in that process. The proposals are certainly a step forward, but I do not think that we should congratulate ourselves too much: a good deal more is needed.

Mr. David Atkinson: Until the Maastricht summit, there was, in my view, a real danger that the iron curtain would be replaced by a silver curtain dividing the rich from the poor in Europe, and that the Community would commit itself to ever-greater union

without regard to the rest of the continent. As my right hon. Friend the Minister has just reminded us, it is thanks to our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's insistence that the negotiations of last summer have led to the agreements that we are discussing.
Nevertheless, the agreements have not come before time, given that the democratic revolutions in the countries concerned took place over two years ago; nor do they reflect the enormous scale of the problems that those countries face as they attempt to move from central, planned economies to a free market, with the ending of subsidies, the inflation and unemployment that are inevitable in such transitions and the social and industrial unrest that is happening in all three countries to varying degrees.
We need only look at the defence industries of the three countries—we are debating this at the Western European Union in December—to see the extent of the devastation that their economies now face. Czechoslovakia's defence industry alone faces a decline of 80 per cent., and the lack of research and development is rendering the remaining 20 per cent. obsolete. Poland's huge over-capacity in the manufacture of arms and equipment offers little hope of conversion, while Hungary's defence industry is almost non-existent; what is left of it now faces bankruptcy.
We can and do provide help and technical assistance through the Community's PHARE programme, and through our own know-how fund. It is, however, the opportunity to trade—to sell to the rest of us in the Community, through a reduction in the number of barriers—that represents the most immediate and practical help that we can offer now. As my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) said a few moments ago, the agreements provide for a transitional period of up to 10 years. That can be of no help when help is most wanted—now.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) mentioned the private conversation that he had with President Walesa when he visited the Council of Europe two weeks ago. No wonder he reminded the parliamentary Assembly that it was his country that had cracked communism and freed the West from the cold war, which had, in turn, enabled us to reap the peace dividend. He felt that he was entitled to more help than that provided by the agreement. How right he is.
I hope that my right hon. Friend can assure the House that more opportunities to trade will soon be available to those three countries than those contained in the agreements. I hope that he can assure us that all the remaining COCOM restrictions against those countries will be lifted—none of them pose any threat to us now. I hope that he can confirm that the agreements will be extended to include the emerging democracies of eastern Europe, which will soon qualify for full membership of the Council of Europe. Bulgaria almost certainly qualifies, as it recently held elections. The Baltic states, Romania as well as Slovenia and Croatia, which we have now recognised, will also soon qualify for membership. Even Albania, which is in such desperate need of help now, will become eligible for membership.
Within the Balkans and other parts of central and eastern Europe there is growing, worrying evidence of a gradual but persistent return to old practices—hostility against minorities, conflict within states and friction, even conflict, between some of those states. It was the precise aim of the original European Community to ensure that


each member state had a vested interest in avoiding such conflicts. That principle must now apply throughout the continent, not just through the conference on security and co-operation in Europe, the CSCE, but through free trade. That is the only way in which democracy will succeed and human rights can be guaranteed.
The agreements are just the start. They must be extended as soon as possible.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: There are many political and economic matters of overwhelming importance, but I do not apologise for returning to the issue of the architectural and artistic heritage of Bohemia.
I believe that I speak for the Minister's hon. Friends, the Members for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack), for Milton Keynes (Mr. I3enyon) and for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) and my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) as well as for Lord Craythorne and Lady David and others who had the good fortune to go on the all-party heritage group trip to Prague for three days.
The issue relates to thefts that are occurring in the present circumstances. The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. and learned Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) has written to me about this:
It is indeed ironic that the coming of democracy has brought with it regrettable incidents of this kind.
The Foreign Office has confirmed that it too has evidence of thefts, particularly of wood carvings, The Minister also said:
This is, of course, a matter for the Czechoslovak police, who will, no doubt, do their best to prevent thefts of this kind. But they are at present going through a major process of change.
We should help them in that process of change. The Minister says that we are providing such help, but what precise help has been given and how much are we giving through the know-how fund? Comparatively small sums could do a great deal to save much of that heritage.
The Minister also noted that a police advisory team had been sent to Czechoslovakia, and said:
This has been very useful and we understand that the team's recommendations are being followed up. A more efficient police force, better able to deal with criminal activities, and more publicly accountable, should be the result of the changes.
Since that letter of January, has the Foreign Office monitored those changes? The Minister accepted in that letter:
There are, of course, practical problems in preventing this particular kind of crime. As you say, many of the carvings are in run-down churches, often in remote areas. It would be virtually impossible for all to be protected sufficiently to prevent thefts.
I recall one moving incident in Czechoslovakia when we got off our bus, suddenly and unexpectedly, and the local people locked the British parliamentarians inside the church. We were a bit surprised at that, but, on reflection, it was all too obvious that they had been subject to such raids on their own shrines on previous occasions, which they had been unable to do much about. Understandably, they were suspicious of us.
The letter goes on:
The final point of control within Czechoslovakia is, of course, at the border. While border controls have been relaxed since the revolution in 1989, Czechoslovak customs officers are, I am sure, on the look-out for items of this kind.

Given the economic circumstances of many of those customs officers, we should not be too surprised if there is often a nod and a wink. That is the point of my intervention. The Foreign Office has a moral obligation to talk seriously to the London art market—and to the art markets of Munich, Frankfurt, Hamburg, and Vienna, as well as New York and San Fransisco. If we are serious about doing something, we must ensure that considerable sums of money are not to be made out of Czechoslovakia in the fruitful western art market. I hope that the Government will do something about that.
The group had a meeting of an hour and three quarters with Mr. Dubcek, and many other meetings with Czechs and Slovaks. As one who is immersed in the problems of minorities, I think that it would be tragic if, as the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) said, a situation developed in which those two peoples drifted apart. No one can know the future, and the west has a moral obligation to do as much as possible to prevent that from happening.

Mr. Tim Rathbone: First, I pay a speedy tribute to my Council of Europe colleagues on both sides of the House, including the Liberal spokesman on European affairs, for their contribution to such debates, which often take place in the Council of Europe's meeting place in Strasbourg and other places. The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) referred to the meeting that took place in Hungary.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House have been reticent about suggesting how much money should be spent. I shall be courageous or stupid enough to suggest a figure. Three and a half years ago, I proposed to the Council of Europe the outlines of what was loosely labelled a "Strasbourg plan". The price ticket on it was £400 billion spread over four years. The figure was not simply scratched out of the sky but was an extrapolation of what the United States gave to western Europe in far easier circumstances after the second world war in support of the Marshall plan, and I have brought it up to today's prices.
It is worth mentioning that, if only to draw to the House's attention the fact that, however much we are doing—we can be proud of what the Government are doing in support of know-how and of what the European Community is doing through PHARE—it is so small compared to what we should be doing to ensure the development of democracies and free economies in those countries. They have the knowledge and desperate desire to succeed, yet they cannot do so—not for lack of trade opportunities, although those must be given, but for lack of know-how, investment and wherewithal.

Mr. Christopher Gill: My right hon. Friend the Minister will be aware of some of the reservations that I have expressed about how the European Community develops, but I hope that he will not be surprised to hear me welcome the association agreements with these three countries. I regard this as an important widening of the European Community. There are jolly good and sound political and strategic reasons for accommodating these three countries. It is desirable to help them towards full


membership. They are historically and culturally part of Europe and they are industrious nations which are by inclination capitalist.
The Minister spoke about reducing trade barriers. It is important to encourage trade, because trade rather than aid will ultimately lead to the prosperity that we want these countries to enjoy. However, we are on the horns of a dilemma, because the last thing that western Europe needs at present is more food, in which it is in surplus. There is enormous potential in those eastern European countries, but given the profit motive, modern plant and machinery and access to western technology, they will produce much more food than Europe can consume.
I understand the case for facilitating trade in agricultural products. We have to start somewhere, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) said, some of the industrial products of those countries are no longer in demand. For example, there is no demand for armaments. Possibly the only feasible trade that we can encourage is in agricultural products. We must not encourage additional trade in those products without paying regard to its effect upon United Kingdom farmers; nor can we ignore the legitimate concern of consumers about the health and hygiene standards applied to agricultural products from eastern Europe. Hon. Members will know that no country in Europe has the equivalent of our food safety Acts.
Help to eastern Europe cannot extend to lowering or waiving the food standards that we regard as important for the protection of our consumers. United Kingdom farmers and consumers will want the Minister's assurance that there will be a level playing field, even though we want to do all that we can to encourage trade with these nations. I trust that the Minister will assure the House that there will be no compromise on food standards.

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: There has been some discussion about the non-availability of documents. However, the content of the documents and the drift of the negotiations have been widely reported for some time, and I understand that the documents were available to the Select Committee last month. To say that the documents were suddenly made available last week is not entirely accurate. It is worth reflecting on the difficulty that sometimes arises in the EC of getting documents finalised. I shall not dwell on the matter, because we are dealing with rather wider issues.
In many ways, the documents are deeply disappointing. Both Front-Bench speakers engaged in much high-sounding talk about the need for liberalisation and for trade. The documents are deeply protectionist. They show that, at the very time when eastern Europe needs to trade with us and when countries there are struggling to open their economies, to turn them into market economies and to wrench them away from the dead hand of central control and central planning, we are preaching the sort of free market policies that we are not prepared to put into practice.
We are saying that we will not open our markets to their goods for the next five to 10 years. At the end of that period, European industries and special interest groups which have pleaded so strongly for continuing trade

barriers will be back asking for more. Even within the limited agreements, it is not clear from the documents—but it is clear from secret agreements that have been leaked to the Financial Times—that even the goods that the eastern European countries will be allowed to sell to the European Community will be strictly limited by price support and price maintenance agreements. So those eastern European industries will not be able to undercut the industries of the EC. So much for free trade and free markets.
These documents maintain barriers against the very types of low added value, unsophisticated products that the eastern European countries could sell to western Europe: food, steel, textiles and coal. The EC, for all its benefits, has unfortunately become the prisoner of special interest groups and industrial lobbies which find access to the EC's decision-making processes far easier than do the mass of voters or those who represent wider consumer interests.
I do not blame the Government for these documents, because we had to negotiate at the EC and I know that the Government adopted a more liberal approach at the EC, but I wish that our Government had pushed a little harder. Our own Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food took a slightly disreputable stance on some issues, especially raspberries. To protect a small group of farmers in this country, strict limits were placed on imports from countries such as Czechoslovakia, Poland and Hungary.

Mr. Ernie Ross: When I tell the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), he will be looking for you.

Mr. Oppenheim: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not carry out that threat.
It is small-minded of the EC to adopt this attitude. Ultimately, it will not help us; it will raise prices in western Europe and the EC. Protection and the lack of competition will not really help these industries—they never do. Indeed, it is in the long-term economic interests of the EC to move out of precisely this type of low added value, unsophisticated industry.
There has been a great deal of talk in recent months about aid for eastern Europe. What these countries need even more than aid is the ability to trade. Unfortunately, the documents do not give them as wide an ability to trade as they really need. If, over the next few years, the slow steps towards market economies and proper democracy falter in eastern Europe, a large measure of responsibility for that will rest with the European Community and the industries which have lobbied for these protectionist measures—because they have been too small-minded at such an important juncture in the history of Europe.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Curry): I shall deal mainly with the agricultural issue, because that seems to preoccupy Members most. If I do not have a chance to reply to all the other issues that have been raised, I shall make sure that a reply is given later—[Interruption.] I refer, for instance, to Polish visas, about which the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) is muttering.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) and to all hon. Members who serve on the Council of Europe for their


work with that body. I might be expected to sympathise with anyone who has the sense to meet in Strasbourg, given my past.
I want to address the issue head on. Agriculture is a sensitive issue. There is no point in pretending that it deals in products like any other. The Community is struggling under its heavy surpluses and heavy budgetary costs, as well as the heavy economic costs of agriculture. Member states are necessarily reticent about liberalising trade if that will have a displacement effect in increasing the costs of the policy.
The fact is that every country was involved in the agreement, one or two member states with slightly more reluctance than others. Once these products enter the Community, they circulate freely throughout it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) mentioned raspberries, which illustrate the dilemma. We have faced a long-running problem with imports of raspberries from the countries of eastern Europe. The fruit tends to go into the processing and jamming industry. It competes with the raspberries grown on Tayside in Scotland. As a result, the industry there has found itself in severe straits. My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) would endorse the remark that Mr. MacSharry has promised a structural plan for the Tayside raspberry growers, but it has been a long time coming: we are now promised it for April.
Should we say that it is best to give processors the lowest-cost raw materials, and bring in raspberries, which are then treated with some sort of preservative—they are then eventually made into jam, with the assistance of dyes to restore their red colour—or should we decide to achieve a balance between those interests and the interests of the producers in the EC, given the cost structures under which they labour?
At the end of the day, does it benefit the people in the countries of eastern Europe if they put products on the European market at prices that cannot be sustained and that do not represent a fair economic return to them? It is a genuine dilemma. It is impossible to satisfy everybody. One has to devise a mean, and that is what we have tried to do. I hope that my hon. Friends do not think that we have been too disreputable in doing that, but it is an issue that has to be tackled.
Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary were given reduced quotas for all the agricultural products for which they asked for concessions. The starting point was the current level. The tariff quota system means that, as the quantity rises, so the levy is reduced. The rise in quantity is 10 per cent. a year over five years—that is simple, not compound—giving a 50 per cent. improvement. The levy is reduced by 20 per cent. a year for three years, amounting to a 60 per cent. reduction.
The products most likely to be used for trading purposes are beef, sheepmeat—where there is already a voluntary restraint agreement—pigmeat, the only area where the quantities concerned start at a slightly higher level than is already being sent, poulty, where the United Kingdom already imposes fairly stringent animal health rules so that precious little poultry comes from eastern Europe at the moment, and cereals, where previously there were large exports to the German Democratic Republic. That was the magic market for products from eastern Europe, but the market has virtually disappeared.
Skimmed milk powder, butter, cheese and horticultural products are likely to reach the United Kingdom more

than others because of the ease of transport. The generalised scheme of preferences concessions already given to these countries cover mainly pigmeat, poultry and horticulture, and are consolidated in the agreement.
Some people ask why all this produce does not go to the former Soviet Union, since that would be by far the easiest solution. The answer is that the increase in the quota can be offset against what is called triangular trade. Some member states would like that to continue for as long as possible, because it keeps that produce away from the European marketplace.
France, Germany and the others have agreed to open their borders to agricultural produce. All the other member states have signed the association agreements. The Community is a single market. Imports crossing the frontiers can come to any member state. The Mediterranean countries are likely to have less difficulty over imports, as the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) mentioned, because their products compete less with the kind of products that come from eastern Europe.
It is difficult to estimate the costs of the common agricultural policy. There are many variables. There is uncertainty about how reform of the common agricultural policy will work out. There is also uncertainty about the outcome of the GATT negotiations, and therefore about the prospects for world markets and the unit costs of export refunds—one of the essential components in determining the costs of the CAP.
There is great uncertainty over the extent to which Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia can maintain their traditional links with the former Soviet Union, to which a great deal of their trade was geared. On my recent visit to east Germany, I went to the Treuhand, where an attempt is being made to privatise a whole raft of companies. The great problem is that the output of many of those companies is geared towards the market in the Soviet Union which virtually ceased to exist overnight.
Collectively, the three countries produce about the same volume, in output terms, as the old West Germany. If, therefore, a substantial proportion went to European Community markets and if the unit costs of surplus disposals were not reduced, there could be a significant increase in the budgetary cost of the common agricultural policy. But "you pays your money and you takes your choice". If one chooses to liberalise and says, rightly, that a certain commodity is the one that these countries have most readily to sell to the west, that it is our duty to help them and that therefore we must accept a certain level of imports, we cannot say at the same time, "We're awfully sorry, but we must pretend that no cost is involved in doing this." That must be part of the political decision-making process.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) is concerned about health standards. I recognise that farmers say, "We're quite willing to help. We understand that health standards are needed, but will it be a level playing field? Are we going to find that cheap, nasty or unhealthy products come on to the European market while pressure is put upon us to upgrade our standards, to observe the rules and to pay the costs of upgrading those standards?" The answer, when dealing with livestock products, is that they can be shipped only from abattoirs that meet standards that have been approved by the European Community. If a product does not meet animal health rules or if there is an animal health concern such as


Newcastle disease in poultry or offal from eastern Europe for the pet food industry, it does not enter the United Kingdom.
Under the Food Safety Act 1990, we can inspect products as they come in from third countries, and if they present a risk they can be returned. Documentary and identity checks are made—we look in the boxes that come from third countries. Where undertakings have been given about the quality and status of the product, we shall enforce those requirements. It does importers no good if they get a reputation for sending produce that is not up to standard, any more than it does the United Kingdom any good to accept products that pose a threat to health standards. The third countries know that they must address that genuine concern.
The hon. Member for Hamilton gave us his personal memories of the Berlin wall. We all recognise that such an emotional charge is legitimate—anyone who had not faced the events of the past few years with some emotion would be less than a normal human being—but we cannot sustain the east European countries on the basis of continuing emotion. We must offer practical help that we can sustain; we must be able to afford it, or we shall end up in conflict.
The agreement is the first step towards such sustained association, eventually leading to membership. The decisions were difficult, but it is a substantial form of help. It is the most practical help, and it is to be welcomed as the first stage in eventual greater union in the EC that will embrace those countries.

Mr. Dalyell: Will the Minister give an undertaking to approach the arts markets in relation to the Bohemian carvings?

Mr. Curry: If the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food were to approach the arts markets, they would

regard it with a certain curiosity. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office has heard what the hon. Gentleman said, and no doubt he will wish to take his suggestion to heart.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of the proposals described in the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 29th November 1991, relating to Association Agreements between the Community and its Member States and Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia, and European Community Document No. 10561/91, relating to interim agreements between the Community and Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia; welcomes the principle of Association Agreements between the European Community and the reforming democracies of Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia; recognises that these Agreements will offer them substantial benefits by encouraging trade with the Community, enhancing political co-operation, and strengthening links with the European Community to which these countries have expressed a wish to accede; and looks forward to early ratification of the Agreements.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

COMMUNITY AIRPORTS (SLOTS)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 102 (European Standing Committees).
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 4496/91 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Transport on 3rd February 1992, relating to the allocation of slots at Community airports; notes that the principle of efficient, neutral and transparent airport co-ordination is in line with the Government's aims; notes the strengths of the existing worldwide system of slot allocation; and endorses the Government's intention to respond to the draft Regulation on the premise that any change to the system should benefit users without creating practical difficulties for the civil aviation industry, and without substantially extending the role of governments in slot allocation.—[Mr. David Davis.]

Question agreed to.

Transport (London)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. David Davis.]

Mr. Tom Cox: I welcome the opportunity to debate the transport difficulties that many Londoners experience. London has high unemployment, housing shortages and hospital and education needs, but the transport needs of the capital are high on the list of any London Member.
We can all make statements and give facts and figures on any issue, but after 12 years of Conservative Government one cannot see any major ongoing improvement in the transport services of London. Indeed, not only Members of Parliament but many outside organisations regard a strategic planning authority to co-ordinate all aspects of transport in London as a major issue. We are still waiting for such an authority, but its establishment will be one of the top priorities of the incoming Labour Government. It is common sense to introduce such a policy because, throughout the 32 London boroughs, one often finds that one borough has absolutely no idea of the road development plans or traffic policy of the adjoining borough.
Whenever one opens one's post, one can be certain that some letters will express concern about London's transport systems. One has only to sit in on Transport questions to hear the complaints. As I read the correspondence that I receive, I often wonder why we are in such a mess in London. Why is public transport so unattractive for so many people?
We have just had a debate involving members of the Council of Europe. I am also a member of the Council of Europe and I very often use public transport in European cities and towns. We have many meetings in Paris: when one compares the Paris metro with the London underground, one finds in Paris an efficient, clean and much cheaper service than that in London, and people use the system in Paris. The entire network has modern trains; stations are being modernised and there is a real commitment by Governments—irrespective of their political complexion—to public transport. If only the same thing had happened in this country, the criticism that hon. Members and I make would not be applicable.
I shall deal now with the underground services affecting my constituency. To his credit, about 18 months ago the Minister for Public Transport came to my constituency and travelled on the Northern line, so he knows the problems and complaints. However, it is still an utter disgrace that we expect thousands of people to travel on that line. The Northern line is not the only problem, but it goes through my constituency. There is a continuing problem of escalators that do not work. At Tooting Bec station, one escalator is out of action and I am told that it will remain so for a considerable time. That causes various problems for people who want to use that station.
Against that background, fares are increased year by year. Even so, the Minister is not able to say, "Yes, I agree that fares are high, but look at the quality of the service that the commuters get for paying high fares." The tragedy is that they do not get a good service.
It is the same story with buses.

Mr. Martin Redmond: I draw to my hon. Friend's attention the fact that bus services in south Yorkshire were deregulated, and there is mention of bus deregulation in London. The public were told at the time that they would have a better service and cheaper fares. We have had a worse service, complaints from all over Doncaster—indeed, from all over South Yorkshire—fewer passengers and higher fares, and the public can no longer afford to use the effective transport service that we used to have. I warn my hon. Friend to beware of Government promises about deregulation. The Minister might want to comment on that.

Mr. Cox: I thank my hon. Friend for that comment. I was going to mention deregulation briefly because it is obviously being mentioned more and more in London. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) specialises in this subject and I know that, if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will want to contribute to the debate.
What is the Government's vision for buses and road policy in general? A few years ago, the London assessment studies were carried out and vast sums of money were going to be spent on supposed road improvements. The area that I represent was to get the western environmental route improvement scheme. But once the general public became aware of what the scheme would do to the community, they rebelled, with the result that the proposed system was conveniently dropped. When schemes of that sort were under discussion, vast sums were to be allocated. Many of us would like to know where the money has gone that was set aside for road development schemes in many areas of London. Has it been used to fund other improvements in the transport system?
The Minister may say that red routes are part of the Government's policy. I can only say that they constitute a scheme that has not caught the imagination of the community in Islington. By and large, it has seen no improvements as a result of the introduction of the red route. Indeed, traders have faced additional obstacles during a difficult trading period.
In January, the Freight Transport Association published a document entitled "Transport Dilemma". Among other things, it called for better-quality public transport that would be supported financially by government, with pump-priming investment subsidies. Are we to hear from the Minister that there is a real commitment? Whatever has been invested by the Government over recent years, it has not developed the transport system. Investment has ensured only that the service continues to run while attempts have been made to improve existing services. The services that so many of us believe are needed urgently have not been developed.
What has Government funding amounted to when set against the moneys that have been sought by London Transport over a three-year period? What Government assistance was London Transport seeking and what did the Government give it to enable improvements to be made? It will do no good for the Minister to say that there are difficulties, that the country faces problems and that there must be restraint. London Members and London commuters say that there have been no good years. There have been no years during which those who run the buses or the underground service in London have been able to


say, "How well the Government have responded to us." Year by year, that which was sought has not been approved.
It cannot be said that Britain is a poor country. The North sea has brought us enormous wealth. Whatever we may think of privatisation, enormous sums have come into the country as a result of it. The two sources have produced astronomical figures. How much of that money has been used to introduce improvements, especially in education? I shall bring my remarks to an end because I want to give my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South the opportunity to contribute to the debate.
In a few weeks' time, we shall be facing a general election. Whatever the smears and abuses—sadly, the start of the campaign has introduced them already—there will be real issues, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) said, the general public in London and the rest of the United Kingdom will want to know where the parties stand. In my view, no issue will be of greater interest than where the parties stand on public transport.
We have seen what the Government have done in the past 12 years. We have had neither improvements nor the Government commitment that there should have been. I am sure that the public will welcome the opportunity when the election comes to pass judgment on the Government's record and decide what they believe an incoming Labour Government can do. That will be the real test, and many of us will welcome the opportunity for the people to judge the Government's record and to decide on the basis of that record.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) for having raised this matter tonight, and to the Minister for attending the debate at short notice.
One party—the Prime Minister, no less—has made his position clear, certainly on the matter of buses. On deregulation elsewhere, the right hon. Gentleman's citizens charter says:
Deregulation has produced an expansion of both long-distance coach and local bus services and … passengers now enjoy a far wider variety of operation and services than before … We now intend to extend the benefits of a deregulated bus industry to London".
Of course, it will be privatised, too.
I was very surprised at the news, and wrote to the Prime Minister because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) pointed out, in other metropolitan areas of Britain, the reverse is happening. In my hon. Friend's part of the world—South Yorkshire—passenger mileage fell by 21 per cent. between 1986 and 1988. In Merseyside, it was 30 per cent.
I wrote to the Prime Minister and pointed that out. On 22 August, he replied—ironically, as it turns out tonight—
The evidence from outside London shows clearly that deregulation has resulted in a more innovative approach to the provision of bus services, with an increase in the number of buses and in total bus mileage operated. If you wish to pursue this point further, I am sure Roger Freeman will be able to cite chapter and verse".

The right hon. Gentleman may be able to say that bus mileage has increased, but bus numbers fell by 3,000 in the metropolitan areas, as returns to the Association of Metropolitan Authorities showed.
It is ironic that, in answer to a parliamentary question on 22 July—during the very month in which the charter was published—the Secretary of State for Transport praised London Transport thus:
London Transport … has done so much already to improve the quality of services provided by buses in London.
I would not altogether go along with that—especially as LT has had its subsidies from taxpayers and charge payers cut. Having praised London Transport, however, the Government intend to deregulate and privatise all at once, and take us back to the days of the private buses and transport chaos that existed in London before LT was created in 1933—with all-party agreement, I might add—and became a world model transport agency.
We have a degree of integration in transport. The travelcard, which is well advertised, is an example. In the answer that I quoted, the Secretary of State said:
The Government will be working actively with operators in the coming months to encourage them to come up with their own proposals for such schemes after deregulation.
That refers to the travelcard. The Secretary of State's reply continued:
It was therefore decided that it is neither necessary nor appropriate to legislate to secure the future of the present Travelcard scheme or to ensure that a suitable successor scheme is devised.
So there is to be no legislation for that.
What about the rightly prized old-age pensioner's travelcard, brought in by the Greater London council, which was a boon to all London's pensioners? The Government rightly say that that will continue, but it is important to note that the answer to which I referred says:
The London boroughs will have the same discretion as local authorities elsewhere to vary the terms of their concessionary arrangements. However, they will … be required to operate a Londonwide discretionary travel scheme."—[Official Report, 22 July 1991; Vol. 195, c. 333–36.]
However, there is a choice to charge, and the boroughs do not charge at the moment.
Why was that included if not to allow some authorities, the political persuasions of which I can guess, the freedom to charge? We had a great battle in the early 1970s all over London because some Tory authorities were unwilling to contribute. We managed to get over that, but the parliamentary answer to which I referred clearly threatens to put the clock back.
As I said, London's transport became the envy of the world in the 1930s. It was an integrated system that was willed by the House and by the people of London. It was owned by the people of London. Long ago, we had our own tram services in East Ham and West Ham. They were later converted to trolley buses. We own the buses in London. Although they may not be perfect, they are subject to improvement. We can ask Ministers about them. They are the property of the people of London whom we represent.
The buses should not be sold off, particularly not to pirates from Hong Kong. That might sound a little far-fetched, but any busman will confirm that some of the operators who are hovering in the wings come from as far away as Hong Kong. We are all aware that the Government sell our assets to people from abroad.
We are not considering a citizens charter or a passengers charter for the people of London. If it ever comes to pass, it will become a citizens' nightmare.

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): I congratulate the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) on securing this debate on the important Subject of improved transport in greater London. The hon. Gentleman's solution to the problems that he described was the creation of a strategic planning authority—the Greater London authority. Doubtless we shall argue the merits of that at the hustings.
The Government believe that that is the wrong way to approach transport provision and planning in London. The Department of Transport fulfils the major part of that remit and, within the Department, the London transportation unit has a specific responsibility for the co-ordination of planning information for the provision of public transport services in London and for road planning.
My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning and I regularly meet the LPAC—the London Planning Advisory Committee—and the Department of Transport sponsors several assessment studies which consider road and rail options in different parts of London, and the hon. Member for Tooting referred to several of those. If we consider the Government's record over the past 12 years on better quality public transport, the phrase used by the hon. Member for Tooting, the House will agree that there has been significant improvements. The record is good in relation to development.
The Government have accepted the recommendations of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in respect of London Underground for a level of funding for the existing underground of about £700 million per annum. That level will be reached in 1993. We accepted that recommendation, which means that a massive programme of improvements will be made to the Central line amounting to more than £700 million. In addition, individual stations will be refurbished. For example, the Angel will be refurbished at a cost of £70 million. Other stations will also be improved.
At the southern end of the Northern line, about which the hon. Member for Tooting is particularly concerned, the modernisation of stations at Tooting Broadway, Tooting Bec, Clapham South and Clapham North will proceed. However, the complete refurbishment of the Northern line cannot commence until the massively expensive Central line programme is complete. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is sensible to move from major programme to major programme on the underground.
The Government have consistently supported the construction of new underground lines, and I hope very much that the construction of the Jubilee line will commence shortly if Parliament approves the private Bill which is currently in another place. Thereafter, progress can be made on crossrail and the Chelsea-Hackney line. I do not accept the criticism that, in our forward planning, we have neglected the needs of London Underground. The chairman has described his aspiration for what he describes as a decently modern metro. He and London Regional Transport are going to get just that.
Commuters come in from significant distances compared with other great European cities—indeed,

76 per cent. of all commuters coming into greater London come by rail or underground, compared with only 14 per cent. by car. As for British Rail, there is a major programme within Network SouthEast—more than £350 million last year, and I hope that a similar amount will be spent on investment purposes in this financial year. That includes re-equipping the Chiltern line and commencing the major work of re-equipping the inner Kent suburban commuter lines.
This morning, I visited Liverpool Street station and saw for myself the tremendous improvements and the resignalling project which has brought great benefits to the number of trains which can enter that rather constricted space.
The hon. Members for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) and for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) referred to buses, as did the hon. Member for Tooting. However, I could deal briefly with South Yorkshire. I share the concern of the hon. Member for Don Valley about falling patronage. When I was in Sheffield quite recently, I inquired about the reasons for the fall over the past 12 months—about 10 per cent., which is very disappointing, but it was in a period well past deregulation and when fares had not risen substantially. One of the main reasons for that is the marked preference of the people of South Yorkshire to own their own motor cars.

Mr. Redmond: I do not mislead the Minister. The public of South Yorkshire, in particular Doncaster, are highly dissatisfied following the deregulation of buses. There are multiple fares within Doncaster chasing a diminishing number of passengers. Because the companies want the most profitable routes, other areas invariably have to suffer. For weeks, a group of old-age pensioners in my patch of Edlington were without a bus service because the private bus company would not operate it and, due to the financial restrictions placed on South Yorkshire Passenger Transport, it obviously did not want it. Thankfully, South Yorkshire Passengers are coming to rectify the situation, but unless positive action is taken, there will be further deterioration—more cars and more polution.

Mr. Freeman: It is a perfectly fair point that the price of competition is, in some cases, not necessarily disruption of services but change in services. Competition can mean the concentration of private sector companies on routes that they believe to be the most profitable. That is why it is important that local authorities, and in London the London Bus Executive, should subsidise routes that are socially necessary and are not provided by the operators. In Greater London, when we introduce our Bill in the next Parliament, we shall make provision for significant subsidies by the taxpayer, not the community charge payer, for socially necessary routes.
I was saying that, in South Yorkshire one of the main reasons for the recent fall in patronage has been the desire of local people to own their own motor cars, which is one reason why the Government have strongly supported supertram, which is another way of trying to capture people away from the motor car and back on to public transport.
The hon. Member for Newham, South referred to travelcards. I assure the hon. Gentleman that travelcard and similar schemes are extremely valuable, not only in London but in other great metropolitan areas such as Newcastle, the west midlands, and Greater Manchester,


where I recently talked to the passenger transport authority about how to preserve, upon a sale of its municipally owned bus company, an all-bus operator card. There is no evidence that a travelcard will not thrive in London following deregulation. We shall strive to ensure that it does so. There is no evidence that the hon. Gentleman can cite from anywhere outside London of the death of such all-bus operator or multi-mode travelcards.
We have no intention of jeopardising the concessionary fares scheme. Indeed, as the hon. Member for Newham, South will know, we propose to legislate for the automatic roll-over of a scheme that applied in the previous year into a year when there is no agreement between all the London boroughs on a particular scheme. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is important to ensure that such a scheme is pan-London, applying to all the boroughs. That is because many bus routes operate through several boroughs. It is important not to fragment the operation of the concessionary fares scheme within London.

Mr. Spearing: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Freeman: I have only one minute left, so I wish to conclude.
The hon. Member for Newham, South also mentioned subsidies. I have already repeated the Government's

assurance that subsidies for socially necessary routes will continue in a deregulated environment in greater London. The reason for deregulation is simple. It is to enable other bus companies to introduce additional services in greater London—initially, we believe, in the outer suburbs. We think that that will be of advantage to Londoners, because they will have more bus services to choose from. Although there might be some initial disruption of services, I do not accept that in the long run it will mean fewer buses operating.
Our policy on roads is clear. We have introduced up to 300 miles of new red routes in London to speed the flow of buses. The House will know that I recently announced Government assistance for bus priority measures not only in greater London but throughout the country. I hope that we shall have further announcements to make in the coming months. For greater London, we shall also study the applicability of road pricing.
The hon. Member for Tooting suggests an authority for Greater London, but no money. His colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench can offer not a penny more for public transport in London. We have a good development record, and we believe in a co-ordinated transport policy and priority for public transport.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes past Twelve midnight.